Managing Joint IP Rights in International Partnerships

Introduction

With globalization and the rise of technology, international business partnerships between companies from different countries are becoming increasingly common. From joint ventures to collaborate on new products and services to multinational corporations with locations worldwide, companies today frequently work across borders.

While global partnerships enable businesses to expand their reach and combine their strengths, they also introduce complex legal considerations, particularly surrounding intellectual property (IP) rights. IP like patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets constitute some of the most valuable assets for many companies. When partnering with an organization based in another legal jurisdiction, it becomes critical to properly handle the ownership and protection of any joint IP rights.

Failing to clearly establish IP ownership in an international collaboration can lead to a myriad of issues down the road. Disagreements over who rightfully owns or can use jointly created IP could arise. Certain jurisdictions may not fully recognize IP protections applied elsewhere, leaving jointly owned rights vulnerable. Poorly handled IP could even contribute to a partnership dissolving entirely.

This article will delve into the key challenges and best practices around managing IP rights in cross-border business relationships. First, we will look at considerations for establishing ownership of any patents, trademarks, copyrights, or other IP produced jointly through an international alliance. Next, we will explore strategies for protecting those rights across multiple countries. We will also discuss managing infringement issues that may emerge and planning for dissolution of a partnership. By understanding the nuances of handling joint IP ownership internationally, businesses can set their collaborations up for success.

Establishing Ownership of Joint IP

When companies from two different countries partner on developing products, services, or assets, it creates the potential for jointly owned intellectual property. Determining who rightfully owns what portion of IP generated from an international collaboration can quickly become complicated. Here are some of the key factors to consider:

Laws and Regulations

Every country has its own set of IP laws that dictate certain ownership rights. For example, the US has a “first-to-invent” system for patent rights, while the rest of the world uses a “first-to-file” system. Such differences in IP regulations between jurisdictions partnering must be taken into account. Some partnerships choose to file for IP protections independently in each country instead of jointly.

Creation and Inventorship

The details of which partners actually contributed to creating or inventing a particular IP asset will impact ownership rights. For instance, copyright ownership will often default to whoever authored original creative work, like software code. With patents, inventorship regulations vary but generally reflect who conceived of the invention.

Employment Agreements

If one partner’s employees contribute to jointly developed IP, existing employment contracts become relevant. Most agreements have clauses stipulating that IP created by employees automatically belongs to the employer. Partnerships must be aware of any such preexisting IP ownership terms.

Prenegotiated Terms

Ideally, the ownership breakdown of any resulting joint IP should be codified in the contract forming an international collaboration. This could entail splitting ownership 50/50, dividing rights by asset class, or assigning majority control to one lead partner. Spelling out IP ownership in the joint venture agreement is key.

In general, the more each partner contributes to jointly created IP assets, the stronger their claim of ownership rights. Though other factors like prior agreements and local laws may override. For complex collaborations, it is advisable to consult IP attorneys from all involved jurisdictions when establishing terms.

With trademarks and patents, co-ownership is possible but comes with some caveats. Co-owners must have mutual consent to license or assign trademarks or patents to third parties. For simpler joint ventures, sole ownership by one partner with licensing rights granted to the other partner can avoid such co-ownership dilemmas.

When negotiating shared IP ownership, key questions partners should ask include:

• What preexisting IP does each company bring, and are any background rights being contributed?
• Who will be responsible for developing new IP assets?
• How will resulting IP ownership be divided?
• Which partner will handle IP registration and protection processes?
• If the partnership dissolves, what happens to joint IP rights?

Addressing these questions from the outset and putting terms in writing creates clarity. Including specific details of IP ownership split percentages, territory restrictions, and asset contribution in contracts sets all parties up for success. With thoughtful handling of joint IP rights during formation, international partnerships can avoid messy disputes down the road.

Protecting Joint IP Rights

Once the ownership of intellectual property created through an international partnership is established, the next crucial step is protecting those rights. The legal protections for IP like patents, trademarks, and copyrights are territorial in nature. This means they are only enforceable within the jurisdiction where registration and approval occurs.

With jointly owned IP, it becomes necessary to secure protections across multiple countries where each partner operates. Without adequate protections globally, jointly developed assets lose value and become vulnerable to infringement. Here are some key strategies for protecting jointly owned intellectual property abroad:

Secure Broad Trademark Rights

For jointly owned trademarks and service marks, registration should be pursued in every country where partnerships plan to use the trademarks or conduct business. Trademark squatters could register marks improperly if partners fail to stake claims globally. Every partner should research where all key trademarks need registration and create a budget for international filings.

Prioritize Patent Cooperation Treaty Applications

For jointly owned patents and patentable technology, following the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) process can simplify things. Via a PCT application, partners can start the patenting process simultaneously across 150+ countries. This delays the complex decision of selecting countries until 31 months after initial filing. PCT applications buy time to evaluate commercial viability and necessary IP protections.

Register Copyrights in Key Territories

Jointly developed software, content, and other creative IP should get copyright registered at least in the home countries of each partner. This establishes the copyright evidence trail required for infringement disputes. Registration may also be prudent in large markets where copyrighted works will be published or distributed. But the Berne Convention means copyrights apply automatically, so registration everywhere is likely overkill.

Monitor Competitive Landscapes

Partners should watch for activity in competitive spaces to protect jointly owned IP assets abroad. Trademark watch services can track registrations involving similar trademarks worldwide. This allows partners to oppose applications and mitigate infringement risks. Likewise, monitoring technology patents within relevant categories and jurisdictions helps avoid litigation over possible patent overlaps.

Limit Information Sharing

Being cautious about sharing certain IP details externally preserves proprietary knowledge developed jointly. Non-disclosure agreements and internal document controls are a must. The more public the information regarding innovative methodologies, source code, or other IP, the harder they become to protect across jurisdictions. Keeping trade secrets closely guarded maintains their value.

Overall, every partner should contribute to an IP protection strategy spanning their existing markets and potential expansion targets. Budgeting adequately for international IP registration and monitoring costs is key. In general, higher financial investment in IP protections globally results in greater rewards for jointly owned assets. But partners must balance current commercialization plans with future possibilities to optimize spending.

Ongoing Communication

With partners located internationally, frequent and clear communication about IP protection is essential. Regular status updates on trademark and patent filings help keep efforts aligned. Prompt discussion of potential infringement issues or disputes allows for quicker resolution. Language barriers may arise, so keeping IP communications simple and direct is wise.

When expanding IP protections cross-border, key questions for partners to discuss include:

• In which countries and jurisdictions should our jointly owned IP have protections?
• Are there any filing deadlines or other time sensitivities we need to be aware of?
• What level of investment should each partner make in international IP protections?
• What systems can we implement to monitor our IP abroad regularly and efficiently?
• How will we communicate about ongoing protection status and next steps?

Documenting these protection plans and revisiting them annually ensures coverage remains adequate despite shifts in strategy. Ongoing collaboration is vital for keeping valuable intangible assets safeguarded worldwide.

Leverage Expert Guidance

Throughout the process of establishing and protecting joint IP rights across borders, regular guidance from IP lawyers is invaluable. They can steer partners toward the most effective approaches and avoid pitfalls. IP attorneys in each country involved should be consulted for localization. With a carefully crafted global IP strategy guided by experts, the fruits of international collaboration stay protected.

Managing Infringement Issues

When companies jointly develop and own intellectual property, one unavoidable risk is the potential for infringement disputes down the road. Even with diligent registration and protection, conflicts over unauthorized use of IP can arise – especially when rights span multiple countries. For partnerships owning IP globally, having protocols in place to handle any infringement issues is key.

Detecting Potential Infringement

To begin managing disputes, partners must remain vigilant about monitoring and detecting possible infringement of their joint IP. Some best practices include:

Leverage Watching Services

Specialty vendors offer trademark, patent, and copyright watching services that track registrations and uses worldwide. They can flag potential conflicts with jointly owned IP rights. Partners should use these services anywhere major markets for their IP exist.

Conduct Internal Monitoring

Beyond third-party services, the partners themselves should monitor for potential infringement within their industries. Regular online searches, trade publication reviews, and competitors’ offering analysis may surface IP conflicts.

Follow Protocol for Flagging Issues

Partners need a process for promptly communicating about any observed potential infringement. A point person at each company should be designated to field these notifications and determine validity.

By actively monitoring and communicating about possible unauthorized use of jointly owned IP, the partners are able to identify true conflicts early. This allows for quicker action.

Evaluating Infringement Risk

Once a potential infringement of joint IP comes to light, the partners must carefully assess the situation before taking action.

Gather Facts

The initial priority is gathering all the pertinent details around the potential infringement. What IP is implicated, what unauthorized use is occurring, who is behind it, and the scope of impact should be understood.

Consult With Legal Experts

IP attorneys with expertise in the relevant jurisdictions should analyze the infringement case details. They can provide perspective on legal options and the strength of the infringement claim overall.

Weigh Risks

Partners must evaluate risks if proceeding with formal legal action, including potential costs, time requirements, and further publicizing the conflict. In some cases, it may not be prudent to pursue infringers.

Consider Alternatives

Beyond litigation, there may be alternative approaches to addressing the infringement, like directly negotiating with the infringing party. Partners should explore these options too.

By completing due diligence before taking legal action, partners can pursue infringement cases judicially only when justified.

Enforcing IP Rights

When evaluation confirms pursuing an infringement case is the proper course, swift and decisive action becomes important. Partners must collaborate closely in these situations.

Initiate Legal Proceedings

The partner directly impacted or possessing majority rights over the IP should initiate litigation in the appropriate jurisdiction. Other partners provide support throughout the legal process.

Seek Preliminary Injunctions

Filing for preliminary injunctions can stop infringing activities while the case proceeds. This limits further damage to joint IP interests.

Communicate Externally

Partners should coordinate public communications about the infringement case, balancing transparency with discretion. Releasing statements helps notify industry players and constituents about the conflict.

By working collaboratively, partners can deploy their joint resources to defend hard-won IP rights globally. United fronts generally lead to quicker resolutions and greater protection of intellectual property.

Looking Ahead to Avoid Future Problems

Beyond addressing active conflicts, partners can also take proactive measures to prevent and manage disputes cooperatively:

Outline Joint Enforcement Procedures

Spelling out decision-making protocols, cost-sharing policies, legal support duties, and communication plans for infringement scenarios in partnership agreements helps smooth joint enforcement.

Pursue Trademark and Patent Insurance

Special insurance policies are available to cover costs of infringement litigation globally. Partnerships dealing in substantial IP should explore this option.

Learn From Each Dispute

Partners should conduct after-action reviews of each infringement response to glean lessons for improving future performance. This continuous improvement mindset strengthens joint abilities over time.

With some forethought, proactive monitoring, and effective collaboration, partners can overcome infringement challenges. Protecting jointly owned IP rights across borders is rarely straightforward – but due diligence paves the way.

Accounting for Future Dissolution of Partnerships

When companies first join together as international partners, the focus is typically on current collaboration and optimism for a long and successful relationship. However, pragmatism dictates that provisions should be made for dissolution even at the outset of partnerships. With jointly owned intellectual property, having contingent plans for one day unwinding the partnership becomes especially important.

No business relationship lasts forever. Due to shifting business landscapes or even interpersonal conflicts, most joint ventures and international partnerships eventually come to an end. Without proper planning, the dissolution process can quickly become messy if IP rights are not properly addressed. Here are some strategies to account for future dissolutions when establishing joint IP ownership:

Build in Time-Limited IP Licensing

Rather than outright co-ownership of IP like trademarks or patents, partners can choose to structure arrangements as licensing deals. This grants each partner specified usage rights for the jointly developed IP for a set number of years. If the collaboration dissolves, the license simply expires and full control reverts to the IP owner. This avoids complicated transfers.

Outline Dissolution Contingencies in Contracts

Ideally, the foundational partnership agreement should include clauses addressing dissolution scenarios. This provides an orderly roadmap to follow if the need arises down the line. Contingencies around IP can cover buyout terms, IP transfers, licensing period adjustments, and more.

Create Vesting Schedules

Vesting schedules are a tool partners can implement to account for dissolutions. With this approach, IP ownership percentages shift over time depending on how long the partnership lasts. For example, ownership could incrementally start at 80/20 and eventually reach 50/50. If dissolution occurs earlier, interests revert to the original split.

Address Geographic Market Divisions

Partners can choose to divide IP rights and protections geographically instead of or in addition to percentage splits. This allows for easier separation if dissolving, since usage zones are already defined. One partner could take North America rights, the other Europe, etc.

Outline Transition Support Requirements

Dissolving partnerships while transferring active IP projects, registrations, or infringement litigation is complex. Spelling out transition support expectations for asset transfers and knowledge sharing around active matters makes things smoother. This could entail documentation delivery requirements, legal cooperation duties, or temporary personnel sharing.

Limit Licensing to Active Term

Partners should be very purposeful about licensing terms around joint IP. Licenses can be constructed to immediately expire upon partnership dissolution. This prevents uncertainty around if or when each partner must cease using the IP. New licenses could be re-negotiated later if desired.

Create Escrow Systems

Important partnership documents including IP details can be kept in escrow accounts controlled by third parties. If a dissolution occurs, the escrow agency has everything needed to facilitate smooth IP-related transitions. This provides stability.

Explore IP Insurance Options

Special insurance products help protect IP assets through ownership changes resulting from mergers, acquisitions, or dissolutions. Partnerships dealing heavily in IP may benefit from these to add safety nets as relationships shift.

Plan For Teardown During Setup

Being mindful and realistic about dissolution prospects from the very formation of partnerships is wise. Making decisions about IP structuring and protection with the future unwind in mind leads to better constructs today. Assuming success can lead to shortsighted plans.

Carefully considering what should happen if a partnership disbands before that day arrives leads to proper contingency building. With dissolutions, disputes easily arise, so proactive planning is essential.

When establishing initial IP ownership and usage terms between international partners, critical questions to drive discussions include:

• How could we divide rights now to make separation smooth later?
• What risks or issues could arise for each partner if dissolving with shared IP?
• What dissolution clauses or provisions would give each side adequate security?
• What transition support would be essential for a fair separation?

Working through these constructive questions sets the stage for more purposeful plans. And reminding all parties to keep the future in mind – not just present goals – encourages forethought.

With develop international partnerships, nothing can ever be guaranteed. But accounting for all possibilities, including dissolution, allows for smarter structures and mitigated risks. Taking the time upfront to tackle tough questions sets the stage for solid joint IP foundations. And solid foundations provide the best footing for whatever the future may hold.

Case Studies of IP Issues in International Partnerships

To better understand the real-world challenges and lessons surrounding joint IP ownership across borders, examining case studies provides helpful perspective. Here are examples of major intellectual property disputes that arose from international collaborations and partnerships:

Amazon and the Kindle Trademark in China

E-commerce giant Amazon encountered significant trademark troubles when attempting to launch its Kindle e-readers and tablets in the Chinese market during 2011-2012. The issues stemmed from the fact that Amazon did not own the Kindle trademark in China.

A Chinese company called Beijing Century Joyo Courier Services registered and began using the Kindle mark in China starting around 2000. Amazon only registered Kindle trademarks in the US, Europe, and other western nations when debuting the Kindle globally in 2007. It had not accounted for securing the trademark in China.

Once entering discussions to sell Kindles through a Chinese partner, Amazon discovered Beijing Century Joyo’s prior rights to the Kindle mark. When Amazon moved to challenge the trademark, Chinese courts ruled largely in favor of the prior registrant.

To salvage its product launch, Amazon ultimately had to acquire the Chinese Kindle trademark rights from Beijing Century Joyo for an undisclosed sum likely worth millions.

Key Takeaways

• Register vital trademarks globally, not just domestically, from the start.
• Research trademarks thoroughly before entering new international markets.
• Be prepared to pivot if trademarks are unavailable in key jurisdictions.

This case highlights the importance of global trademark protections for internationally marketed products and brands. Failing to research and secure trademarks across all key regions left Amazon exposed. Partnerships must learn from this example.

Boston Scientific Stent Patent Disputes Across Europe and Asia

Medical device maker Boston Scientific faced extensive patent litigation overseas related to its coronary stents. Rival companies in Europe and India challenged its patent rights on stent designs through the 2000s and 2010s.

In 2007, Johnson & Johnson unit Cordis sued Boston Scientific for infringing a stent patent in multiple European countries. Though Boston Scientific was marketing its stents across Europe, it did not hold patent rights everywhere. After losing cases in Belgium, Britain, and the Netherlands, it had to pay €120 million in damages to Cordis.

Meanwhile in India, local companies disputed Boston Scientific’s sole patent on drug-eluting stent technology. This prevented the company from stopping competitors who reverse-engineered its products. Boston Scientific attempted but failed to get India’s patents overturned.

Key Takeaways

• Assess competitor patent landscapes before entering foreign markets.
• Pursue patent rights abroad even if marketing plans are uncertain.
• Expect challenges from local companies in developing markets.

Boston Scientific’s IP setbacks in Europe and India illustrate how lack of patent protections in key overseas markets can undermine partnerships. Savvy global patenting is essential, even preemptively.

Celgene-Dr. Reddy’s Joint Venture IP Dispute in Canada

In the late 2000s, American pharmaceutical company Celgene entered a joint venture with Indian firm Dr. Reddy’s to sell Celgene’s cancer drug Revlimid in Canada.

The partnership involved Dr. Reddy’s handling commercialization while Celgene retained IP rights. After a few years, Celgene ended the joint venture in order to sell Revlimid directly in Canada instead.

Dr. Reddy’s argued the dissolution violated their partnership agreement, and sued Celgene in Canadian courts to stop them commercializing Revlimid independently. A settlement was eventually reached allowing Celgene to proceed, but not before years of costly litigation.

Key Takeaways:

• Clarify terms and provisions around dissolving IP-based joint ventures.
• Build contingency plans for bringing assets fully in-house post-partnership.
• Calculate risks of conflicts ending collaborations during setup.

This case demonstrates the common pitfalls when unwinding international IP joint ventures. Canadian companies must safeguard interests by planning carefully for dissolution possibilities from the start.

Conclusion

By examining difficult real-world cases, partners can identify pitfalls and prepare contingency plans. The costs of international IP issues are too steep to ignore. With diligence and forethought, partnerships can avoid others’ mistakes.

Crafting an effective global IP strategy across multiple legal systems is complex for any collaboration. But the potential risks of improperly handling joint IP rights make a well-considered approach critical. By laying foundations thoughtfully, registering rights broadly, communicating consistently, and learning from past failures, cross-border partners can set themselves up for success.

There are never guarantees when it comes to international partnerships and joint IP ownership. However, thorough planning and protection from the start allows partners to navigate uncertainties and resolve issues collaboratively. With teamwork and pragmatism, the fruits of collaborative innovation can be shared equitably by all.

FAQs

What systems can we implement to monitor our IP abroad regularly and efficiently?

Partners should consider leveraging watching services, conducting periodic online searches, setting up news alerts, and maintaining schedules for reviews and reporting. Centralized databases to track filings and registrations across regions also help stay organized. Ongoing communication and issue escalation protocols are key.

How will we communicate about ongoing protection status and next steps?

Partners should designate points of contact for IP matters in each region and set regular status update meetings or calls. Consolidated dashboards, shared databases, and communication logs can keep all parties aligned. Email, shared cloud documents, and collaborative platforms facilitate transparency.

How could we divide rights now to make separation smooth later?

Strategies like granting limited licensing rights instead of full co-ownership, creating sunset provisions in contracts, using incremental vesting schedules, and segmenting rights by region/country from the outset can build in smoother separation frameworks.

What risks or issues could arise for each partner if dissolving with shared IP?

Key risks include loss of access to jointly developed IP assets, disputes over ownership and rights if not contractually clear, leaked trade secrets or intellectual capital, brand continuity challenges if assets split, and difficulty valorizing jointly owned IP.

What transition support would be essential for a fair separation?

To transition smoothly, partners may need contractual requirements around knowledge transfer, personnel resources, documentation sharing, transitional licensing, staged asset transfers, and delineating post-separation boundaries. Support duties should be outlined.

Let me know if you would like me to expand on any of these FAQs or add additional questions that need addressing based on the section headers.

What preexisting IP does each company bring, and are any background rights being contributed?

Partners should comprehensively audit and disclose any background IP, including patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets, or proprietary methods relevant to the partnership upfront. Legal teams review to determine if preexisting assets will be licensed, assigned, or contributed by each party and under what terms. Defining background IP usage rights in the partnership agreement is critical.

Who will be responsible for developing new IP assets?

The partnership agreement should specify which partner(s) will take the lead in creating any new IP like product designs, software, patented processes, trademarks, or copyrightable works through the collaboration. Typically IP development aligns with each partner’s core competencies. Ownership rights may be tied directly to creation responsibilities. Joint development roles and shared ownership can be codified as well.

If the partnership dissolves, what happens to joint IP rights?

Ideally the foundational contract will include provisions for allocating jointly owned IP rights in the event of dissolution. This may entail reverting to sole ownership by the main creator, splitting rights along regional or categorical lines, requiring assets be licensed back to partners non-exclusively, or mandating a partner buy out the other’s IP stake. Having an advance plan prevents messy disputes.

What systems can we implement to monitor our IP abroad regularly and efficiently?

Centralized databases combining info from national IP offices alongside watching service alerts provide real-time visibility. Assign research duties across regions and schedule periodic reports. Automated monitoring and centralized dashboards surface issues quickly. Local counsel gives on-the-ground insights. Ongoing communication and designated point people help maintain focus.

How will we communicate about ongoing protection status and next steps?

Partners should hold regular IP strategy meetings, include IP updates on cross-functional partnership calls, maintain shared documentation in cloud-based platforms, designate regional point people, document decisions in shared logs, and automate IP monitoring/reporting where possible. Multiple communication channels ensure alignment.

How could we divide rights now to make separation smooth later?

Consider geographic divisions of IP rights, structuring the partnership around licensing arrangements, creating sunset provisions or vesting schedules in contracts, delineating fields-of-use restrictions, naming specific covered products/services, limiting rights transfers, and outlining contingency plans for dissolution during initial setup. These allow pivoting if needed.

What risks or issues could arise for each partner if dissolving with shared IP?

Key risks include loss of access or ownership of jointly developed assets critical for business continuity, IP or products getting stuck in legal limbo during complex dissolution proceedings, confidential business information or trade secrets being compromised during transitions, brand continuity/identity loss if trademarks are divided or require rebranding, inability to leverage synergies from integrated offerings if IP gets fragmented, and substantial costs or delays associated with untangling jointly owned assets.

What dissolution clauses or provisions would give each side adequate security?

Clear delineation of ownership reverting back to original creators, put options for buying out a partner’s IP stake, requirements for broad perpetual licensing of jointly owned IP to both partners post-dissolution, geographic carve outs giving each partner exclusive rights in key regions, confidentiality clauses protecting proprietary knowledge, transition service agreements, non-competes in each other’s spheres, and predetermined valuation methodologies add security.

What transition support would be essential for a fair separation?

To transition partnerships smoothly, the agreement could mandate reasonable technical assistance for transferring IP registrations and associated administrative duties, sharing of product designs/specifications and development documentation as needed for continuity, maintaining continuity of brand identities for a transition period, providing regulatory compliance support, and lending personnel resources to cover gaps during the separation process.

In which countries and jurisdictions should our jointly owned IP have protections?

Partners should secure protections in all current markets where IP is used, get coverage in any planned expansion countries discussed for future partnership activities, consider emerging growth markets where IP risks may evolve, and evaluate smaller complementary jurisdictions on a case-by-case basis, balancing costs vs. benefits of comprehensive coverage globally. Input from regional leads is crucial.

What level of investment should each partner make in international IP protections?

Factors to consider include the value of jointly developed IP assets, current revenue streams reliant on those assets in each region, size and growth prospects of target expansion markets, risks posed by local infringers or competitors, robustness of IP laws in different countries, and the financial resources each partner can allocate. Partners should aim for cost-proportional splits.

How can we craft an effective global IP strategy across multiple legal systems?

Conducting comprehensive due diligence on the IP landscape per region, consulting local counsel worldwide, centralizing and coordinating IP registration and protection activities across jurisdictions, communicating regularly between partners on IP issues, budgeting adequately for global coverage, and staying vigilant through watching services and enforcement procedures will enable partners to craft an effective cross-border IP strategy.

What provisions would give each side adequate security if the partnership dissolves?

Including clauses for licensing IP indefinitely to former partners post-dissolution, geographic carve outs granting exclusive rights in each party’s home regions, first rights to buy out the other’s IP stake, confidentiality requirements around proprietary knowledge, transitional service support duties, valuation methodologies for asset splits, non-compete clauses, and clear ownership reverting rules provide security if partnerships unwind.

How can we navigate uncertainties and resolve issues collaboratively?

Partners should maintain transparency around IP-related decision making, document shared understandings of agreements and responsibilities, embody flexibility and openness during conflicts, focus on joint interests rather than self-interests alone when problems arise, leverage mediators if needed, and ultimately prioritize the partnership’s sustainability through collaborative problem solving when uncertainties emerge.

What are some key considerations for IP protections when partnering between Canadian and international companies?

Canada is part of major IP treaties like PCT and Madrid Protocol that facilitate global patent and trademark applications. Registering IP rights early in the process, auditing a partner’s prior IP contributions, outlining ownership split terms clearly, and planning for enforcement across provinces are important for Canadian international partnerships.

What IP challenges tend to arise in joint ventures between Australian and Asian partners?

Australia’s higher-cost IP registration system often conflicts with the Asia-centric model. Ensuring IP developed in Australia gets protected adequately in growth Asian markets where products will be sold, preventing IP theft, and negotiating revenue-sharing terms favorable to the Australian partner based on R&D contributions are key issues to navigate.