Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 01 NOVEMBER 2022

IP Valuation: How To Measure What You Cannot See

Dennemeyer & Associates S.A.
Explore more from Dennemeyer & Associates S.A.

The value of Intellectual Property (IP) assets has skyrocketed in recent decades. In some cases, the worth of an organization's IP far exceeds that of its physical resources, property or other holdings.

LuxembourgIntellectual Property
Alexander Gangnus
Alexander Gangnus
Author LinkedIn connections

The value of Intellectual Property (IP) assets has skyrocketed in recent decades. In some cases, the worth of an organization's IP far exceeds that of its physical resources, property or other holdings.

A valuation of your intangible assets is critical to getting the most out of this "hidden" treasure trove — particularly in times of economic uncertainty. But this task is not as simple as opening a box and counting the coins inside.

Register now for the live webinar on November 9!

The value of IP today

According to a 2020 report, the cumulative value of the intangible assets held by companies on the S&P 500 has surged since the mid-1990s — from $3.12 trillion USD in 1995 to $9.28 trillion in 2005 and $21.03 trillion in 2018. Looking back to 1975, a time when physical assets dominated the account books, the IP of all S&P 500 organizations was worth just $122 billion USD.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

UPC CoA Confirms “gold Standard” For Added Matter In Sibio v Abbott

The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court recently issued a decision examining whether omitting an elastomeric sealing member from a patent claim constitutes added matter, applying the EPO's "gold standard" test while emphasizing the importance of functional and structural relationships between features. The ruling provides crucial insight into how the UPC approaches intermediate generalizations and whether its methodology differs from the notoriously strict EPO practice on added subject-matter.
LuxembourgIntellectual Property
HGF Law
HGF Law
Article

G 1/25: When Must The Description Be Adapted To Amended Claims?

The European Patent Office's Enlarged Board of Appeal has issued a landmark decision in G 1/25 "Hydroponics," addressing a fundamental question that has divided practitioners for years: when patent claims are amended during examination, must the description be adapted to match? The ruling establishes that inconsistencies between claims and descriptions only require correction when they result in non-compliance with the European Patent Convention, not merely for achieving formal consistency.
LuxembourgIntellectual Property
Dennemeyer & Associates S.A.
Dennemeyer & Associates S.A.
Article

G 1/25: When Must The Description Be Adapted To Amended Claims?

The European Patent Office's Enlarged Board of Appeal has issued a landmark decision in G 1/25 "Hydroponics," addressing a fundamental question that has divided practitioners for years: when patent claims are amended during examination, must the description be adapted to match? The ruling establishes that inconsistencies between claims and descriptions only require correction when they result in non-compliance with the European Patent Convention, not merely for achieving formal consistency.
LuxembourgIntellectual Property
Dennemeyer & Associates S.A.
Dennemeyer & Associates S.A.