| Open Innovation is unquestionably becoming a "hot" | | | | And, another company's cast-off products or |
| area of focus for many U.S. companies, especially in | | | | technology are not necessarily "junk." To the |
| the current economic climate in which businesses are | | | | contrary, patented products or technology could |
| more than ever focused on smarter ways of doing | | | | have been discarded for a number of reasons such |
| business. And, why wouldn't Open Innovation be an | | | | as: |
| intriguing business model when companies can fill their | | | | - The patentee's strategy changed, thus meaning the |
| product and technology pipelines for significantly | | | | products or technology were no longer of business |
| lower cost and with more variability of ideas than | | | | relevance |
| typically is possible from their own R&D | | | | - The patented products or technology were a |
| infrastructures? As a result, more and more business | | | | non-core aspect of an acquisition and, although |
| leaders are today viewing Open Innovation as a | | | | valuable to the acquired company, are no longer |
| necessary direction in which to move their company's | | | | relevant to the new corporate owner |
| innovation efforts. | | | | - The patented products or technology were "ahead |
| A fundamental premise of Open Innovation is that | | | | of their time" and not appropriate for market |
| good ideas can come from anywhere, even when a | | | | introduction at the time the patentee developed |
| company operates in a very specialized core business. | | | | them |
| Moreover, innovations that come from outside of | | | | - The patentee is using one aspect of the patented |
| one's core business, such as in packaging or | | | | subject matter, but the products or technology have |
| transportation, are better left to those who specialize | | | | relevance outside of the patentee's market and could |
| in those areas. Perhaps more controversial is the | | | | be licensed in an adjacent market |
| assertion that by relying only on the ideas generated | | | | Moreover, patented innovations are by definition |
| from within, an organization's core business | | | | proprietary, and, if broadly patented, that innovation |
| innovations can become self-limiting because the pool | | | | can comprise an exclusive product or technology |
| of knowledge and idea generation may become | | | | offering to an acquiror. This better assures that the |
| somewhat myopic. When properly deployed, Open | | | | acquired innovation can truly be called a |
| Innovation methodologies not only can be the source | | | | "differentiated" offering that is subjected to a lesser |
| of ideas generated outside of the organization, but | | | | likelihood of being knocked-off by a competitor. |
| can also serve as a catalyst for the existing | | | | A further benefit to acquisition of another company's |
| R&D infrastructure to become more creative. In | | | | discarded product or technology is the attendant |
| its best forms, Open Innovation becomes a source | | | | "know how" associated with the patented subject |
| of new products and technology, as well as a means | | | | matter. When a company identifies a product or |
| to spur the creativity of one's own people. | | | | technology as suitable for patenting, it is quite likely |
| In seeking to capitalize on the promise of Open | | | | that it is working to develop that same subject |
| Innovation for modern business, many companies are | | | | matter as a potential customer offering. Thus, the |
| developing internal expertise or engaging consultants | | | | company typically owns know how and other |
| to assist them in meeting their goals. These efforts | | | | valuable information attendant to the subject matter |
| are no doubt critical for Open Innovation success. | | | | of the patented product or technology. By acquiring |
| However, I believe that a missing piece in today's | | | | such unwanted products or technology, a company |
| existing Open Innovation methodologies is deployable | | | | can obtain much more than is evident from the |
| knowledge regarding how patent information and | | | | patent itself. (And, it goes without saying that one |
| analysis can be used to improve and accelerate the | | | | should not reject a product or technology on the |
| quest for promising ideas developed outside of one's | | | | basis of what the patent itself discloses--there may |
| organization. This belief emanates from both | | | | be much more to the described subject matter than |
| substantive client experience, as well as discussions | | | | meets the eye.) |
| with innovation professionals from many | | | | An additional, and maybe not obvious, benefit of |
| organizations. | | | | using patent information as part of an Open |
| In the aggregate, most innovation professionals | | | | Innovation methodology is that by reviewing third |
| conceptually understand that patent information | | | | party patent information, an organization can develop |
| should serve as a source of Open Innovation subject | | | | an institutional knowledge of what is owned by |
| matter. Nonetheless, few of these professionals fully | | | | others prior to engaging in substantive internal |
| appreciate how patents can be used to improve the | | | | innovation efforts. That is, if an innovation team |
| innovation process. Moreover, few patent | | | | knows early the metes and bounds of third party |
| professionals possess the business competency to | | | | patent ownership, the team can better direct the |
| translate their patent legal knowledge into a form | | | | company's efforts away from known products or |
| deployable in the innovation context. As such, a | | | | technology into previously unexplored areas. This can |
| disconnect currently exists between patent | | | | reduce the potential for patent infringement liability, |
| information and Open Innovation methodologies. | | | | as well as improving the likely scope of patent |
| Failure of organizations to fully capitalize on the | | | | protection for the team's own innovations. In this |
| information available in patents necessarily results in | | | | realm, incorporation of patent information into the |
| reduction the payoff obtainable from the adoption of | | | | Open Innovation process can operate as a valuable |
| Open Innovation by a company. | | | | directional signal for product and technology |
| Why do I believe patents are a critical piece to Open | | | | development. |
| Innovation methodology? Put simply--patents can | | | | There are no doubt many additional benefits to using |
| serve as a shopping list for a company seeking to | | | | patent information as an element of Open Innovation |
| identify innovations available for adoption from | | | | methodologies. At a minimum, however, patent |
| outside the organization. By its very nature, a patent | | | | information indisputably can serve as a great source |
| sets forth the fundamental basis of the subject | | | | of insight and direction for those organizations that |
| matter that the patentee wishes to exclusively own. | | | | seek to identify sources of innovation outside of |
| If the patentee developed a product or technology | | | | their own infrastructures. An organization seeking to |
| and later decided not to introduce it into the market, | | | | develop an Open Innovation infrastructure will fail to |
| then that subject matter could be essentially market | | | | fully capture the value from such a program if it does |
| ready (or nearly market ready) for a significantly less | | | | not include patent information capture and analysis |
| cost than to develop a similar technology from | | | | into its Open Innovation methodologies. |
| scratch within one's own organization. | | | | |