Sonja London Appointed Chair of the Board at Helsinki Innovation Services Ltd

On 1 October 2025, changes were made to the Board of Helsinki Innovation Services Ltd (HIS), the technology transfer and commercialisation company fully owned by the University of Helsinki. With deep expertise in technology transfer and the IP sector, the renewed Board is tasked with increasing the impact and market reach of research-based inventions originating from the University. 

Sonja London has been appointed Chair of the Board of Helsinki Innovation Services Ltd. 

Helsinki Innovation Services manages and commercialises intellectual property rights owned by the University of Helsinki, generated by its researchers. HIS supports the research to business process and commercialisation, and coaches researchers in navigating the practical realities of commercialisation of intellectual property rights. 

Making research-based innovations available to companies accelerates their adoption and societal impact. “Licensing can significantly fund scientific research, take innovations to global markets, and speed up their diffusion for the benefit of society at large,” Sonja notes. 

With this appointment, Helsinki Innovation Services gains world-class private-sector commercialisation expertise. “Throughout my career, from Nokia to TactoTek, and now through Fearless IP where I lead strategic licensing advisory, my work has centred on building international commercialisation pathways for technology and innovation. Licensing has been at the core of what I do for over two decades,” Sonja says. 

Bringing Finnish research into commercially usable form also strengthens the global reach of Finland’s technology sector. “The University of Helsinki’s research-based technologies are needed to support the Finnish and European industries, and transferring intellectual property to the market is increasingly topical. We have a strong position and a real opportunity to drive the sector forward,” Sonja adds. 

Societal impact remains at the heart of HIS’s mission. “There are already strong commercialisation success stories, but we want to create many more, and at an increasing pace.” 

“I believe universities can increasingly support their research funding through commercialisation and licensing. In this role, I can bring my experience and international networks with investors, partners and licensing ecosystems to support HIS in advancing research towards sustainable business.” 

The University of Helsinki is also an important alma mater for Sonja. “It is wonderful to return to my alma mater through this Board role. It is a privilege to help Finnish researchers and the University ensure that their inventions find their way into real-world use globally.” 

The new Board of Helsinki Innovation Services Ltd comprises IP strategist Sonja London (Chair), CFO Marjo Berglund, Vice-Rector for Innovation and Infrastructures Jouni Hirvonen, and technology and innovation strategy leader Jarmo Eskelinen. 

Sonja London 

• Sonja has a long career in innovation and technology commercialisation, with over 20 years of experience in intellectual property, patent and technology commercialisation, and licensing. 

• Founder of Fearless IP, an independent international advisory firm supporting companies in strategic IP exploitation, commercialisation and out-licensing. 

• At Nokia (2007–2021), Sonja developed and led international patent licensing programmes. 

• At TactoTek Oy, she served as General Counsel in a rapidly scaling technology company whose business model is based on licensing to leading global automotive players. 

• Sonja has extensive Board experience in Finnish growth companies and listed firms, including Kesla Plc and SolidComp. 

• She is an alumna of the University of Helsinki (Master of Laws, Executive MBA) and a respected visiting lecturer at IPR University Center on patent licensing and IP commercialisation. 

• Through her professional work and her leadership roles within the Licensing Executives Society International (LESI), Sonja has strong international networks across companies, investors, licensing ecosystems and research communities. 

Sonja’s particular international strengths include developing inventions into commercial and licensable assets in line with Research-to-Business models, building effective IP strategies, and scaling innovations to global markets. 

Read more about Helsinki Innovation Services Helsinki Innovation Services | University of Helsinki 

2025: Fearless IP Finds Its Place in Making World-Class IP Monetisation Tangible

As the year draws to a close, we want to take a moment to reflect and to say thank you. 

Fearless IP was founded with a clear purpose: to offer strategic, effective, and easy-to-understand IP monetisation support to companies that need more than theoretical advice. Our mission has always been simple: no jargon and no fluff, but just clear plans, practical steps, and implementation support at exactly the level the client needs. 

It turns out, there was a real need for this approach. 

In 2025, our founder Sonja London was able to dedicate her focus to building Fearless IP and bringing her decades of in-house experience to companies ready to take their IP assets to another level. We are still a small team, which is precisely why we’re able to serve every client personally, flexibly and efficiently. 

This year, Fearless IP established its place in the world of IP strategy and licensing. We've had the privilege of working with visionary clients across industries, meeting innovative businesses and passionate individuals who are creating remarkable technologies, and see the potential to support broader economic growth by getting those technologies into the market. 

We’ve spoken at international conferences, advised companies from across the globe, and most importantly, had meaningful conversations about how to make IP work harder for the business. And what we’ve learned? The need for clarity, practicality, and strategic focus in IP monetisation is stronger than ever. 

Next year, we’ll keep doing what we do best: helping companies identify value, make confident IP decisions, and turn innovation into tangible commercial outcomes. 

To all our clients, collaborators, partners and readers –  thank you. Thank you for the trust, the insightful discussions, the challenges, and the shared ambition to do things better. We’re grateful for a fantastic year and look forward to the next. 

Wishing you a peaceful holiday season and a strong start to 2026, 

The Fearless IP team 

Technology Licensing vs Patent Licensing: What’s the Difference?

When companies talk about licensing, the terms technology licensing and patent licensing often get blurred together. Both are about giving another party the right to use something valuable, but they operate in very different ways.

Understanding the difference is not just a legal detail. It can define whether a licensing strategy works, whether it brings in meaningful revenue, and whether the licensee can actually use what they have paid for.

In this article I explain what separates technology licensing from patent licensing. It looks at the legal structures, business operations, strategic fit, industry practices and the common pitfalls that companies face. The goal is to provide clarity so that when the opportunity for licensing arises, the right tool is chosen.

Patent License = Legal Rights. Technology License = Adds Practical Capability

Patent licensing is the simpler of the two. It is a grant of rights to use defined patents. The license might cover a single patent, a family of patents, or a whole portfolio. Sometimes it is defined by patents listed in an appendix. It can also be tied to a cut-off date, such as “all patents filed before 2025.” In any case, it is clear: the licensee gains rights to practice the inventions that are protected by those patents. Nothing else is included.

Technology licensing is broader. It may include right to use patents, but it usually bundles other elements as well. These can be technical specifications, design files, source code, databases, testing methods, prototypes, training materials, or even trademarks. (Read my previous article about what else besides patents can be licensed.) A technology license is about granting access to things that make a solution usable. Where a patent license provides legal rights only, a technology license provides also the practical ability to apply and implement the technology in practice.

Why the Legal Framework Matters 

The legal structure of these licenses reflects their content. A patent license agreement is anchored in patent law. It typically defines the licensed patents, the scope of use (such as territory or product category), and financial terms. Enforcement is also clear: If a company uses the invention without a license, the patent holder can bring an infringement action. If a licensee fails to pay royalties, the matter is a contractual breach with defined remedies.

Technology licensing is much more complex. Because multiple forms of IP are involved, the agreement must address each separately. For example, copyright license is needed for software and documentation, trade secrets and know-how will also require strong confidentiality clauses. Each right comes with its own legal framework and nuances of enforcement.

Breaching a technology license can have very different consequences. If a licensee misuses software, it may be a copyright infringement. If they disclose or misuse confidential process data, it becomes a trade secret case. If they simply fail to follow the agreed field of use, the claim may be patent infringement. And any one of the mentioned may be a breach of contract.

For this reason, technology licenses demand more careful structuring. Clauses need to anticipate not only what is being licensed, but also how enforcement will work if something goes wrong.

The Business Side: Rights vs Usability 

From a business perspective, both types of licenses are demanding, but the complexity shows up in different places.

In patent licensing, the hardest part is often defining what exactly is licensed and to what kind of use. Portfolios change over time, patents expire, and new ones are filed. Products using the patents might change over time or have limited lifetime. Royalty models must handle these dynamics. Reporting requirements need to be practical, yet reliable.

In technology licensing, the challenge is more practical. It is not enough to grant rights. The licensor must make sure the licensee can actually use the technology. That means providing documentation, specifications, training, updates and sometimes technical support. Without these, the license may look comprehensive on paper but remain useless in practice. Poor documentation is one of the most common reasons technology licensing fails.

Access to technology and transferability of the use rights is another issue. Both patent and technology licenses must state clearly whether rights can be sublicensed or assigned. In patent licensing, this is usually a binary choice: can the licensee grant rights to others or not. In technology licensing, the questions multiply. Can subcontractors access the know-how? Who owns improvements developed during the collaboration and who has right to use them? What happens if a key engineer leaves the licensee and joins a competitor taking all tacit knowledge with her? Each of these situations need to be thought through.

The key difference is that patent licensing is about granting rights, while technology licensing is about enabling real-world use.

Choosing the Right Tool

Patent licensing makes sense when the licensee already has the technical ability to implement the patent in a product or service, but needs the legal right to do so. They do not need outside help to make the solution work, but they cannot move forward without resolving patent rights.

For example, think about IoT product developers who use connectivity modules. The modules already provide Wi-Fi, Bluetooth or 5G functionality. To sell their devices legally, the developers need a license to the patents covering those standards. They do not need to receive know-how or specifications because the technology is already embedded in the components they buy. In this case, a pure patent license is the right approach.

Technology licensing makes sense when patents alone are not enough. This is common with manufacturing processes. For example, a patented production method may also depend on trade secrets, material compatibility data or process know-how that is not disclosed in the patent. Without these, the licensee cannot make the process work. A technology license bundles everything together so that the licensee can actually put the method into practice. 

Different Industries, Different Relaying on Standards or Convergence

The balance between the two forms of licensing varies by industry.

Patent licensing is dominant in sectors built on standards. Telecommunications is the classic example. Anyone building a 4G or 5G device must use patents declared essential to those standards. The same applies to Wi-Fi and to video codecs used in streaming. Industries such as consumer electronics, automotive, IoT and media devices all depend heavily on patent licensing. The standards ensure interoperability, and patent licenses provide the legal certainty needed to sell compliant products.

Technology licensing is more common in industries where product development requires deep know-how beyond what a patent reveals. Electronics and semiconductors depend on design rules, testing methods and software tools. Chemical and material industries rely on confidential processes and data. Biotech and pharmaceuticals need not only patents but also regulatory dossiers, cell lines and clinical data. Software and AI are licensed through combinations of copyright, algorithms, training data and sometimes patents.

The underlying reason is simple. No company can innovate everything on its own. In sectors that depend on convergence of many technologies, licensing broader technology packages is the only practical way forward.

Common mistakes that compromise licensing potential

There are no straight right or wrong decisions to be made, as both approaches carry risks.

In patent licensing, the most common mistake is assuming value where there is little or none. A patent has value in licensing only if the market is actually using it. Without adoption, there is no leverage. Companies also fail by leaving the scope of the license vague, or by assuming licensees will pay without being ready to enforce their rights.

In technology licensing, pitfalls are often more operational. Licensors sometimes underestimate the importance of usability. They may license a technology without providing full documentation that actually was needed or without considering the effort required for the licensee to adopt the technology. Another mistake is misjudging market fit. Even a technically strong solution may not be commercially attractive if it does not deliver clear cost savings, premium pricing possibility, faster time-to-market or other competitive advantage. Think of technology licensing as selling a turnkey service: are you offering everything that’s needed?

In both cases, companies sometimes treat licensing as an afterthought. They build strong IP portfolios or technologies, but do not prepare them for licensing. Then, when they finally try, they discover gaps in documentation, unclear ownership of improvements, or patents that do not cover what the market is using and where.

Success Factors: What Really Works

Despite these challenges, there are clear factors that increase the chance of success.

First, market fit is critical. For patents, this means that the inventions are already in use. For technologies, it means that the package provides measurable benefits. Without this, there is no incentive to license.

Second, clarity in agreements. Scope of rights, obligations, and financial terms must be defined precisely. Ambiguity is the enemy of successful licensing.

Third, enforceability. A licensor must be ready to act if IP is infringed or if a licensee breaches terms. Without credible threat of enforcement, the value of a license is reduced (or become none).

Finally, alignment with your business strategy. Licensing is not just a legal matter. It should support the company’s overall goals, whether that is revenue creation, market access, or building partnerships.

Making the Right Choice 

Patent licensing and technology licensing are often confused, but they are not interchangeable. Patent licensing is about granting legal rights to use inventions. Technology licensing is about equipping someone to actually use a technology, often through a mix of legal rights to IP, know-how and other assets.

Sometimes only a patent license is needed, for example in industries built on global standards. Sometimes only a technology license makes sense, when know-how and data are essential. In many cases, both play a role.

Choosing the right form is not about legal definitions alone. It is about understanding what the licensee really needs. Do they already know how to build, and simply need freedom to operate? Or do they need the full package to make the technology work?

The companies that succeed in licensing are those that can answer that question honestly, package their assets accordingly, and structure deals that are enforceable, valuable and aligned with their strategy. When they do, licensing stops being an abstract concept and becomes a practical business tool.

Making Licensing Tangible – What Makes Technology Licensable?

Not every technology can, or should, be licensed. But when licensing is on the table, one key question always comes up: Is this technology actually licensable? 

In this article I go through what traits can make technology licensable in the first place. It’s not just about how good your invention is. It’s about how complete, protected, usable, and relevant it is—for someone else. 

1. Readiness, Usability and Value 

Licensable technology typically needs to meet three criteria: 

• Technology readiness: It must be ready to use, further develop, or build upon. What “ready” means depends on the industry and application. Sometimes a working prototype is enough for licensing; other times, it must be near plug-and-play. 

• Usability: Technology should exist in a format that others can make use of. Ideas on a whiteboard aren’t licensable. Usable formats include specifications, testing methods, software, configuration files, prototypes, manuals, databases and even training materials. Usable format can also be a patent, which includes description of a solution to technical problem. 

• Value to the licensee: The technology must enable better, cheaper, faster, or more competitive solutions for the licensee. If it doesn’t solve a real problem or create a measurable advantage, it won’t be worth paying for. 

Even when all the technical criteria are met, licensees still need a reason to adopt. Strong technologies become licensable, for example, when they help shorten time-to-market, reduce internal development risks, enable premium pricing, or unlock new use cases. This kind of value proposition makes your technology often stronger than specifications alone. 

2. IP Protection: The Foundation of Licensing 

Without IP protection, licensing has little legal backbone. Why pay if the same thing can be copied, developed or used for free? 

Different IP rights protect different things: 

• Patents protect inventions: technical solutions to technical problems. 

• Copyright protects original creative expressions, like code or documentation. 

• Trade secrets protect confidential know-how or business-critical information. 

These forms of protection work best together, especially in technology licensing. A patent tells the world what the core idea is, but it also makes it public. A trade secret keeps the specifics confidential but offers no protection if someone else independently develops the same solution. 

That’s why licensing of technology works best when supported by a patent portfolio, with trade secrets and other technology assets licensed alongside. Even trademarks and branding elements may be part of the package if they create commercial value. 

Bundling matters. A strong licensing package might include a mix of patents, software libraries, data sets, configuration parameters, testing tools, trade secrets, and know-how. The more complete and usable the bundle, the easier it is for the licensee to adopt, and the more tangible the value becomes. 

Also: having a patent makes licensing your non-core technology easier. It provides a concrete, legal right that a licensee can evaluate. In contrast, trying to license unprotected software, tools, or internal know-how, especially if it’s no longer in use, can be a much harder sell. 

3. Documentation and Transferability 

Even well-protected and mature technology can fail in licensing if it’s poorly documented. Licensing requires clear instructions, usability materials, and sometimes even training. Without these, transferring the technology is difficult and the risk for the licensee becomes too high. 

It’s not just about how the technology works. It’s also about how the rights and obligations like confidentiality, use limitations, support expectations are structured. These should be thoroughly considered early in the process. 

One essential element is ensuring the technology is free of third-party dependencies or rights issues. If the solution contains open-source code, licensed data, or background technology components from others, the licensor must have the right to sublicense, or the licensee may walk away. Freedom-to-operate isn’t just a problem for product developers; it’s just as relevant to licensors. 

4. Technical Strength ≠ Market Fit 

A technology can be brilliant and still not licensable. 

Markets evolve. Competing technologies emerge. Sometimes a technically stronger solution loses out to one with better branding, more partners, or wider ecosystem support. In some industries, one winner dominates. In others, multiple solutions can coexist. 

Licensing only works if there’s a market need and if your technology is a good fit for it. 

5. Why Licensing Fails 

Even if the technology to be licensed would be the most advanced and technically brilliant solution, patented and all that, it might not ever become a licensing success. Licensing is a complex business, and there are many non-technical factors that have a high impact on the outcome.   The most common reasons a licensable technology never gets licensed: 

• No market need, or the technology doesn't fit the need. 

• Poor execution, particularly in go-to-market and licensing process. 

• Lack of financing or patience, especially in early-stage ventures. 

• Confusing business model, for instance, offering licensing when the market expects to buy components or services. 

Markets often need time to adapt to a licensing model. Changing how customers think takes long-term effort. Licensing is typically a business with a long sale cycle, and time-to-money may be longer than expected. It is a business for patient people. 

6. What to Do with Non-Core Technology 

Non-core technologies that are not in active use in the current business or company may hide unused business value. However, not all unused technology should be licensed. The key is to understand whether there’s a market for it.  

• Are similar technologies being used in the field? 

• Are potential licensees using your patent or approach? 

• If it’s not in use, why not? Is it due to lack of awareness, lack of need, or maybe lack of internal development by others? 

Technology and market landscaping help answer these questions. Without clear market interest, even good technology may not justify a licensing push. 

Sometimes licensing is not just about maximizing value, it’s about saving it. For technologies that no longer align with a company’s strategy, licensing can become a bridge to exit, signaling value and creating revenue ahead of a divestment or wind-down. Even a modest licensing deal can improve the asset value of an IP portfolio before a sale of the portfolio or a business line. Finding licensees or buyers for portfolios you don’t need is not an easy task. How to create value with your non-core portfolios is a topic I will be returning in a separate article. 

7. Business Model Matters, but Doesn’t Dictate 

If your company already licenses technology, it’s easier to assess new opportunities. 

If not, the business model doesn’t automatically rule licensing out, but it should be examined. For instance, if your current product includes IP you want to license separately, you’ll need to manage overlaps. If licensing would require enforcing patents against existing customers, that could backfire. 

Compatibility with your core business must be considered before you go to market. 

8. Build with Licensing in Mind, Even If It’s a Backup 

For product- and service-based companies, licensing may never become the primary model. But it should still be a strategic option. 

Smart IP teams build portfolios that protect current offerings and support licensing in case the business context changes. If no such foresight exists, the portfolio might lack the value structure required for licensing, even if the business one day needs it. 

Design Your Business with Future in Mind 

A licensable technology isn’t just technically sound. It’s ready, usable, valuable, documented and protected. 

Whether licensing is your core business or a future option, designing your technology and IP strategy with licensing in mind is what makes it tangible and ultimately, viable. 

What a Global Telco Learned About SEP Value – And What You Can Too

This article was originally published as a blog in Evalueserve website on September 2025 : What a Global Telco Learned About SEP Value 

---

Introduction: The Hidden Value in Your Patent Portfolio 

Intellectual property is a critical lever for competitive advantage and long-term value creation. Yet, even enterprises with substantial R&D legacies frequently fail to extract the full economic potential of their portfolios. Standard Essential Patents illustrate this challenge. These assets, fundamental to industry standards, may remain underexploited, their licensing value hidden by complexity and inattention. 

This blog examines the case of a global telecommunications leader that systematically activated dormant SEP assets. By applying a rigorous methodology and leveraging specialist expertise, the company identified significant licensing opportunities potentially worth millions, achieved without litigation or costly organisational expansion. Their experience provides a replicable framework for organisations seeking to optimise and monetise SEP holdings. 

Phase 1: Recognising the Opportunity 

The company in question had an extensive, technically diverse patent portfolio. Some of these patents were likely essential to widely adopted industry standards. However, the team lacked the internal expertise to assess or act on this potential. Their last engagement with patent pools had been years earlier, and institutional knowledge had faded. 

This approach is a fairly common scenario. Many companies invest in innovation but don't revisit their IP strategy as the market evolves. In this case, the trigger came from within: a renewed interest in understanding whether the portfolio could deliver more than just defensive value. 

With the decision to explore monetisation made, the first step was to understand both the internal assets and the external landscape. 

Phase 2: Mapping the Portfolio and the Market

The team began with a dual-track approach: 

1. Portfolio categorisation: They classified patents by technology domain and assessed potential relevance to existing standards. 

1. Patent pool landscaping: They identified active pools, their licensing programs, and the standards they covered. 

This exercise revealed more than expected. Even seasoned IP professionals discovered new pools and licensing programs they hadn’t previously encountered. The SEP ecosystem had evolved—and so had the opportunities. 

With this foundational understanding in place, the next step was to align internal strengths with external demand. 

Phase 3: Strategic Alignment and Prioritisation

Not every patent is worth monetising. The team focused on aligning the strongest technologies with the relevant standards and the most active and relevant patent pools. They filtered out low-value areas and prioritised segments with high licensing potential. 

This phase was about focus. By narrowing the scope, the team avoided wasting resources on marginal assets and concentrated on areas where the return on effort would be highest. 

But identifying potential is only half the battle. To license effectively, you need to prove essentiality. 

Phase 4: Deep Dive into Essentiality 

The team conducted a deep-dive analysis to determine which patents were truly essential to the standards in question. This involved: 

1. Essentiality assessments 

1. Claim charting (mapping patent claims to standard specifications) 

1. Legal and jurisdictional reviews 

Claim charting was especially critical. It transformed assumptions into evidence, providing the company with a credible foundation for licensing discussions. It also helped them understand which patents could be leveraged immediately—and which might require further development or support. 

With validated assets in hand, the company was ready to engage with the market. 

Phase 5: Engaging Patent Pools 

Armed with claim charts and strategic insights, the company was ready to approach selected patent pools. These engagements move past administration and function as strategic negotiations. Next steps were to evaluate: 

1. Submission requirements 

1. Licensing terms 

1. Revenue distribution models 

Expert support was essential here. It helped the company avoid common pitfalls, such as overlapping pool coverage or unclear royalty structures. The goal wasn’t just to join a pool—it was to join the right pool, under the right terms. 

Once agreements are signed, the focus can shift from setup to sustainability. 

Phase 6: Relationship and Revenue Management 

With licensing agreements in place, the ongoing monetisation needs managing: 

1. Royalty reporting and revenue forecasting 

1. Ongoing communication with pool administrators 

1. Feedback loops for future pool participation 

These steps turn from a one-time project into a managed revenue stream. The company also gains visibility into emerging standards and new licensing opportunities, positioning them for long-term success. 

The financial results appear impressive and convincing, while the strategic benefits extend much further. 

The Impact: Revenue, Clarity, and Optionality 

The project delivered measurable results: 

1. Millions in licensing potential enabled 

1. Strategic clarity on the value and positioning of the portfolio 

1. Operational efficiency through a repeatable, scalable process 

1. Optionality for future monetisation, including direct licensing or asset divestment 

But beyond the numbers, the company gained something even more valuable: confidence. They now understood their IP landscape, their market position, and their monetisation options. 

And perhaps most importantly, they developed a new mindset around IP. 

Beyond Revenue: A Shift in Organisational Thinking 

This project generated future income and reshaped the company’s perspective on its IP. The legal team became a strategic partner. The business leadership saw IP not as a cost centre, but as a growth lever. And the organisation as a whole became more proactive in identifying and acting on monetisation opportunities. 

Claim charting, for example, became a tool not only for licensing but also for internal valuation and strategic planning. The company also began exploring bilateral licensing and potential partnerships based on its newly validated assets. 

So what can other companies learn from this journey? 

Final Thoughts: Awareness Is the First Step to Impact 

This case proves that SEP monetisation doesn't require a massive internal team or a high-risk litigation strategy. What it does require is awareness, structure, and the right partners, empowering you to unlock the full potential of your IP. 

If your company has invested in R&D, chances are you're sitting on valuable IP. The question is: are you doing anything with it? 

With the correct methodology, even a dormant portfolio can become a strategic asset. And as this global telco learned, the return on that investment can be measured not just in revenue, but also in resilience, relevance, and long-term value, paving the way for future growth and innovation. 

When to License Technology or Patents – Strike When Your IP Is Hot

Some companies build their entire business on licensing. But most don’t.

Instead, most companies invest in developing technology and IP to power and back up their own products and services. Then licensing, specifically out-licensing, enters the picture only when something changes: the strategy, the product roadmap, or simply the realization that some assets aren't being used to their full potential. IP team is always tasked with IP protection and portfolio development, and this is where they will focus on. Monetisation may not be the core focus or the skill set of the IP team. When a company has more urgent priorities and licensing revenue isn’t yet embedded in strategy or linked to a concrete action plan, it’s the kind of task that gets postponed indefinitely.

And of course, if you hire people to protect IP, that’s exactly what they’ll focus on, protection, not monetisation. It’s understandable: when a company has more urgent priorities and licensing revenue isn’t yet embedded in strategy or linked to a concrete action plan, it’s the kind of task that gets postponed indefinitely.

This article isn’t about in-licensing (a universe of its own). It’s about the moment when a company should ask: Should we be licensing this out?

The Scenario: Assets with No Home

One of the most common triggers is that something of value was developed, but is no longer used internally. Think of technologies tied to discontinued products, or tools developed for internal use that others might find useful. These assets just sit there, protected by IP, costing money to maintain, yet creating no value.

That's your signal. But it’s not the only one.

In turbulent times, companies increasingly ask how to generate new revenue and make better use of their R&D investments. A structured look at your IP portfolio and technology landscape; what you have, who else is using similar technologies and where adoption is heading, can surface real opportunities to create licensing income.

Sometimes licensing is sparked by outside interest. Another company wants to use your technology. But more often, licensing is driven internally by the realization that there’s untapped value in the portfolio.

Why License?

At its core, out-licensing is about revenue or relationships.

• Revenue provides both reward and reinvestment for innovation.

• Partnerships and ecosystems can grow usage, reinforce your competitive position, or enable joint IP monetization.

In some cases, collaboration with other IP holders can strengthen the collective position and bring more returns for everyone involved.

Timing Is Everything

Too early and there’s nothing to license. The technology isn’t proven or complete enough to be valuable. Nobody is using it yet. The pitch to licensees isn’t compelling.

Too late and the value is gone. In patent licensing, expiry plus the tail for past damages defines your deadline. In technology licensing, the value may last longer—if you’re continuously developing the technology and bundling trade secrets, know-how, or other non-expiring assets.

The sweet spot is when the technology is usable, protected and aligned with current or emerging market needs.

Common Missteps

• Underestimating value: Companies often think licensing is too hard, too costly, or not worth it. Sometimes it isn’t, but a strategic review will give a real answer.

• Overestimating value: Creators of the technology may believe it’s uniquely brilliant. The market may disagree. Landscape analysis helps avoid heartbreak (and wasted effort).

Does This Work in My Industry?

Most likely, yes. Licensing happens in every sector. But it’s especially visible in industries built on shared standards and interoperability, like connectivity, automotive, IoT, streaming and consumer electronics.

Is a Patent Needed?

That depends. Many software or technology licenses work without patents, relying instead on know-how, trade secrets, or code.

But patent licensing is often simpler. It can be based on a clearly defined legal right: a specific patent or set of patents. Unlike in technology licensing, there’s no need to negotiate issues like ownership of improvements, development responsibilities, or transfer of know-how.

What’s more, having patent protection makes it easier to find a licensee, especially for non-core assets. If you're offering a patent license, it's easier for the licensee to evaluate, adopt and justify the deal with patent involved. In contrast, licensing unprotected software, trade secrets, or know-how, especially if they're non-core, often raises questions of risk, enforceability and competitive advantage.

What Makes Something Licensable?

Simply put, a technology is licensable when:

• It has value,

• It’s defined and transferable,

• It’s usable by others,

• And it’s protected, legally and/or practically.

Why would anyone pay for something that not valuable or usable, or which they can use for free?

What Kind of Culture Supports Licensing?

Licensing requires risk tolerance and long-term vision. Revenue doesn’t appear overnight. In some cases, licensing includes enforcement and not every company is ready for that. But whether you enforce or not, you signal to the market what kind of IP owner you are. That perception matters.

Licensing vs. Selling

Licensing can be slower, but you retain ownership and upside. Selling is quicker, but the price reflects the buyer’s risk and discounts future value. One isn’t better than the other. The best path depends on your strategy, your timeline and your capabilities.

Where to start?

If you’re reading this and wondering whether your company has something licensable, it probably does. Licensing starts with awareness. It doesn’t require a perfectly packaged opportunity, just a willingness to review what’s already there. That review doesn’t need to be complex or expensive, but it does need to happen. Whether you talk to a trusted advisor, an experienced licensing partner, or even someone in your own network who’s seen this before, make the conversation happen. Good licensing strategies don’t start with forms. They start with people asking the right questions.

Dare to Look Around and See the Opportunities

Licensing is a way to make your IP work harder. It’s not always the right path, but it’s always worth asking the question: Do we have something of value that others would pay for?

That’s when licensing becomes tangible.