When strategies collide freedom to operate vs. freedom of action electricity dance moms full episode


What happens when technology convergence fundamentally changes your patent risk profile? What do you do when your customer demands broad intellectual property (IP) indemnification and your supplier provides almost none? Industries that clear patents as a standard practice are integrating technology from industries that specifically do not clear patents. If this sounds like a potential train wreck, well, it is.

We recently completed a survey of 16 companies’ activities with respect gas vs electric stove cost to freedom to operate. In that study, we found substantially divergent patent risk mitigation strategies. For example, as you would expect in the chemical industry, companies did full patent clearance searches of their new molecules and processes—they wanted freedom to operate. That means they searched in all their major markets for any patents they might infringe prior to releasing new products. In contrast, high technology companies did no clearance search prior to product launch, but they adopted other techniques for reducing their overall risk—they wanted freedom of action.

However gastroenterology, the big challenges come when two industries collide. This occurs in converging industries such as autonomous vehicles and the Internet of Things (IoT gas quality by brand). Converging industries integrate new high technology into existing established technologies. For example, we have a client that produces heavy industrial equipment and is bringing electric vehicle and self-driving technologies to their equipment. Another client in construction materials is adding wireless technology to enable their products to become internet addressable IoT devices.

Freedom to Operate means testing, prior to launching a product 1 unit electricity cost in tamilnadu, whether any feature will infringe anyone else’s patents. Typically, people will do patent clearance searches in their specific technology area in the major markets and countries where they are likely to produce, sell, or use their products. The process usually involves evaluating the risk posed by a few hundred patents. Industries that operate using FTO include biotechnology, chemicals, and consumer goods. The end result is a decision to (1) avoid including a third-party patented feature by excluding the feature or designing around it, or (2) take on the risk of infringement.

Freed om of Action means having enough patents or enough cross-licenses such that you have the ability to launch products and are comfortable with the risk of patent infringement. There is an implicit recognition that you cannot clear all the patents for electricity research centre your products; your products necessarily infringe thousands or hundreds of thousands of patents. Your aim here is to either have enough patents to ensure that others will infringe enough of your patents that they will not try to sue you or that you have cross-licensed enough of the patent holders to reduce the risk sufficiently to move forward electricity generation in india. Freedom of action is common in industries where there are hundreds of thousands of patents per product. For example, a typical smartphone may use a quarter million to over a million patents, not all of which are owned, controlled, or licensed by the smartphone manufacturer.

The important distinction here is that, in one industry, your goal is to clear patent infringement while in the other your goal is to get comfortable enough with your patent infringement risk. As you can imagine, intellectual property professionals who are used t gastrobar to freedom to operate strategy can have difficulty adapting to freedom of action strategy, and vice versa. To make this even clearer, imagine that you always know that your products do not infringe and now you are entering a technology space knowing that your products do infringe. It is unsettling. Similarly, if you are used to freedom of action, you have no processes for clearing patents, and you now are faced with searching for all the patents in your space, reviewing them, and determining whether you infringe. You also have to explain to your executive team why patent clearance is now gas in dogs symptoms important when it was not before, and there needs to be a budget for it.

Freedom to Operate: The strategy here is to ensure that in your key markets you evaluate the patents that may impact specific features of your product. The goal is to optimize your patent review spending while managing the inclusion or exclusion of specific features your design teams may want to include and understanding that product definitions/product feature sets may duke electric orlando change over the product development process. Often, bringing a new product to market is capital intensive and late changes because of IP problems would be very costly, so you want to identify and eliminate potential infringement early. The process usually looks like this:

Freedom of Action: Here, there are a number of strategies that gas efficient suv 2010 people employ. The most basic strategy is to have enough patents in your technology fields such that competitors will not feel confident in bringing a suit against you. The analogy used is mutually assured destruction (but can often be more complicated). A minimum number of patents might be 1,000 to 50,000 depending on your specific risk profile. Additional strategies can be added. For example, companies will pursue cross-licenses, broader indemnification clauses from their suppliers, and employing defensive aggregators such as LOT Network or Unified Patents. Importantly, at no point does the strategy involve clearing every patent risk for a product because clearance simply cannot be achieved.

Imagine you are in an industry where it is common to give broad IP representations and warranties. Your liability might be uncapped. One way you mitigate risk is you perform freedom to operate analysis on your products. Now you are integrating high-technology solutions in your product. Your new high-technology supplier electricity deregulation map knows that clearing their products r gas constant is impossible and so will only give limited IP representations and warranties. You are stuck; your customers want broad indemnification and your suppliers will not provide it. Your customers do not understand why you would now want to restrict your liability, because they are used to you providing unlimited liability. Your new suppliers are adamant that they never give indemnification; they expect you to have developed a freedom of action plan and that your risk mitigation through that is sufficient for you to produce products.