Valuing intellectual property: Lessons learned from Mitchell Asset Management Pty Ltd v Marissa Di Pasquale

The Victorian Supreme Court decision in Mitchell Asset Management v Di Pasquale highlights that intellectual property value must be assessed with reference to its practical commercial utility, adaptability and investor appeal, rather than simply equating it to historical research and development expenditure.

Introduction

The recent Victorian Supreme Court decision in Mitchell Asset Management Pty Ltd v Marissa Di Pasquale¹ underscores a crucial principle: the value of intellectual property is not solely determined by the research and development cost invested in its creation. Instead, the Court emphasised that valuation should focus more holistically on the asset's utility, adaptability, and appeal to potential investors or end-users within a specific commercial context.