Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Monetizing non-core IP is rational, practical, and increasingly common. The IP literature is now rich with examples of accelerated monetization of cash-generating IP through the transfer of assets and risks, usually assisted through some form of structured finance. The literature is even richer with countless examples of painstakingly slow monetizations of non-cash-generating IP usually through joint ventures or venture capital-backed transactions. We describe a case in which non-core IP was monetized rapidly after which the bulk of the reward potential remained in the hands of the original IP owners. We suggest that when non-core IP is generated consequent to market demand in the course of the Parent's operations, and merely happens to reside outside the Parent's core business, a rapidly structured Parent-financed spin off can create accelerated financial and strategic benefits.
Time Value Spectrum of IP Monetization
Cash-Generating Assets
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?