Careers

Experiences

Industries

Offices

Our Firm

Pages

Our People

Updates

Practices

Warner Norcross + Judd LLP is a corporate law firm with over 230 attorneys serving clients in nine offices throughout Michigan. Among the largest law firms in Michigan, Warner works in virtually all areas of business law.

Michigan Law Firm - Warner Norcross + Judd LLP

Over the course of this series, we have discussed many of the legal and operational decisions foreign companies face when entering the U.S. market. Corporate structure, immigration strategy, employment compliance and defense-industry considerations often receive significant attention from leadership teams because they are visible, immediate and closely tied to a company's ability to begin operating successfully in the United States.

core/paragraph

Intellectual property, by contrast, is often viewed as something that has already been addressed.

Many foreign companies assume that because they already own their technology, patents, software, manufacturing processes, designs and technical know-how, intellectual property is not a major U.S. expansion issue. The thinking is understandable: the company developed its core technology years ago and is simply bringing that technology into a new market.

In practice, however, U.S. expansion frequently changes how innovation is created, shared, protected and owned. The moment a company establishes a U.S. subsidiary, hires American employees, transfers foreign personnel, collaborates across borders or launches research and development activities in multiple jurisdictions, new questions begin to emerge. Who owns inventions developed in the United States? Which entity should own future innovation? How should confidential information be shared among global teams? When should patent applications be filed? How can a company protect its most valuable assets while continuing to grow?

These issues rarely create problems during the first few months of expansion. Instead, they often surface years later during an acquisition, financing round, intellectual property dispute or major customer diligence process — precisely when fixing them becomes significantly more expensive and disruptive.

For many companies, intellectual property is not simply a legal asset. It is the foundation of enterprise value. Protecting that value therefore needs to be embedded into the expansion strategy from the very beginning.

Throughout this article, we will occasionally return to a hypothetical German automotive supplier expanding into the United States. While the example is simplified, the principles apply broadly to foreign companies across industries.

Six Intellectual Property Issues Every Expanding Company Should Understand

Although intellectual property law is a highly specialized field, most foreign companies entering the United States encounter six recurring issues:

core/list-item

Cross-border research and development governance

core/list

These issues are closely connected. A company may successfully patent a technology but later discover that ownership rights were never properly assigned by the employee who created it. Alternatively, a company may possess highly valuable confidential know-how but lose trade secret protection because information was shared without appropriate safeguards. Understanding these issues early allows companies to build structures that protect innovation as the organization grows.

Intellectual Property Is Often the Asset Being Expanded

When foreign companies discuss U.S. expansion, conversations naturally focus on customers, facilities, hiring and revenue growth. Yet for many organizations, the most valuable asset crossing the border is not inventory, equipment or even personnel. It is intellectual property.

For our German automotive supplier, the company's value may reside in proprietary manufacturing processes, engineering expertise, software, product designs, supplier relationships and decades of accumulated technical knowledge. These assets are what distinguish the company from competitors and ultimately drive its long-term success.

The challenge is that expansion changes the environment in which those assets exist. New employees gain access to sensitive information. New business relationships are formed. Research activities become more geographically dispersed. New technologies are developed. The question is no longer whether the company owns the intellectual property it already possesses, but whether it has established the systems necessary to protect the innovation it has yet to create.

This distinction is important because the most valuable intellectual property a company owns five years after entering the United States may not be the technology it brought into the country. It may be the technology developed after expansion.

The Most Common Misconception: “The Company Automatically Owns Everything”

One of the most common assumptions foreign companies make is that inventions developed by employees automatically belong to the company. From a business perspective, this assumption feels intuitive. If an engineer develops a product improvement while performing his or her job, many executives naturally assume that the resulting intellectual property belongs to the employer.

The legal reality is often more nuanced. Ownership of intellectual property can depend on employment agreements, invention assignment provisions, contractor relationships, applicable law, corporate structure and the circumstances under which the innovation was developed. This distinction can be particularly important for companies that rely on consultants, software developers or other independent contractors during the early stages of U.S. expansion. These rules are not always identical across jurisdictions, which can create unexpected complications when companies expand internationally.

Imagine that our German automotive supplier establishes an engineering center in Michigan. The company transfers several engineers from Germany and hires additional U.S.-based engineers to support product development. Over time, the team develops meaningful improvements to a proprietary sensor platform used in both automotive and industrial applications.

At first glance, it may appear obvious that the company owns the resulting innovation. Yet if employment agreements, contractor arrangements, or invention assignment provisions were not properly structured, ownership questions may arise later when the technology becomes commercially valuable.

Contractors can present particular challenges in this area. As companies expand into the United States, they often engage consultants, software developers, engineering firms and other specialized service providers to accelerate growth. Business leaders frequently assume that because the company paid for the work, it automatically owns the resulting intellectual property. In practice, ownership rights often depend on the specific terms of the parties' agreements and the circumstances under which the work was created.

Companies should think carefully about intellectual property ownership whenever outside parties (including artificial intelligence) contribute to the development of products, software, processes or other technology. Addressing ownership questions at the beginning of a relationship is typically far easier than resolving them after a valuable innovation has been created.

For this reason, companies entering the U.S. market should focus not only on who is creating intellectual property, but also on whether the legal framework properly captures ownership rights from the outset.

Employee Invention Ownership Is a Business Issue, Not Just a Legal Issue

Many executives view employment agreements primarily as tools for defining compensation, responsibilities, confidentiality obligations and termination rights. From an intellectual property perspective, however, these agreements often serve another critical function: ensuring that future innovation belongs to the business.

As companies expand into the United States, they frequently hire new employees, engage consultants, establish research teams and transfer personnel among affiliated entities. Each of these relationships creates potential questions regarding ownership of future inventions.

Most companies do not discover ownership problems during routine business operations. Instead, the issue often emerges when investors, lenders, acquirers or strategic partners begin reviewing the company's intellectual property portfolio.

At that point, a seemingly simple question becomes critically important: "Can you demonstrate that the company owns all of the intellectual property upon which the business depends?" The answer can have significant implications for valuation, financing opportunities, transaction timelines and overall enterprise value.

Who Should Own Future Innovation?

One of the earliest strategic questions foreign companies should consider is where future intellectual property will reside. Should new innovations developed by U.S. personnel be owned by the U.S. subsidiary? Should all intellectual property remain centralized with the foreign parent company? Should certain technologies be licensed among affiliated entities?

There is rarely a universally correct answer. The optimal structure often depends on broader business considerations, including tax planning, licensing strategy, financing objectives, future acquisitions and long-term operational goals. What matters most is that the decision is made intentionally.

Many companies inadvertently create ownership structures through hiring decisions, employment agreements and day-to-day operations without ever making a deliberate strategic choice. By the time the issue is identified, changing ownership arrangements can be significantly more difficult and expensive.

Equally important, companies should ensure that ownership decisions are properly documented and maintained over time. As organizations grow, intellectual property is often assigned, licensed, contributed or otherwise transferred among affiliated entities for operational, tax, financing or strategic reasons. While these arrangements serve legitimate business objectives, they can also create uncertainty if ownership records, assignment documents and intercompany agreements are not carefully maintained.

These issues often remain invisible during routine operations. They frequently emerge years later during investor diligence, financing transactions, acquisitions or intellectual property disputes, when third parties seek confirmation that the company owns its key intellectual property and can demonstrate a clear chain of title.

For this reason, intellectual property ownership should be considered alongside corporate structure, tax planning, and overall business strategy during the expansion process rather than treated as a standalone legal issue. Establishing an ownership strategy is important; maintaining a clear and defensible record of that ownership can be equally critical to preserving enterprise value.

Brand Protection Should Not Be Overlooked

When companies think about intellectual property, discussions often focus on patents, trade secrets and technology. Yet for many businesses, brand recognition and reputation are among their most valuable assets. A company name, product name, logo, or slogan that is well established in one country may not automatically be protected in the United States. In some cases, an existing U.S. business may already hold rights to a similar mark, creating potential conflicts that are not apparent until market entry is underway.

Because trademark rights are territorial, companies entering the U.S. market should evaluate whether their key brands are available for use and whether additional trademark protection may be appropriate. Addressing trademark issues early can help avoid rebranding costs, market-entry delays, customer confusion and disputes with existing rights holders.

As with other intellectual property decisions, trademark strategy is often most effective when considered before significant investments are made in marketing, product launches or business development activities.

Trade Secrets Require Active Protection

When executives think about intellectual property, patents often receive the most attention. In reality, many of the most valuable assets a company possesses are never patented at all. Trade secrets generally consist of confidential information that derives value because it is not publicly known. Depending on the business, this may include manufacturing processes, source code, algorithms, product specifications, supplier relationships, pricing strategies, customer information or operational know-how.

For our German automotive supplier, the company's competitive advantage may not come from a patented sensor. Instead, it may come from the proprietary manufacturing process that allows the sensor to be produced more efficiently, more accurately or at a lower cost than competitors.

Unlike patents, trade secrets do not depend on registration. Their value depends on maintaining confidentiality. Once a trade secret becomes publicly known, the legal protection may be significantly reduced or lost altogether.

For this reason, trade secret protection is often less about legal filings and more about operational discipline. Companies should think carefully about who has access to sensitive information, how that information is shared across teams and jurisdictions and what safeguards are in place to protect it. This becomes particularly important during expansion, when companies frequently need to share valuable information with contractors, vendors, customers, strategic partners and other third parties. Without appropriate confidentiality protections and information-sharing controls, those interactions can create risks that may undermine trade secret protection.

The companies that protect trade secrets most effectively are often those that treat confidentiality as an ongoing business process rather than a one-time legal exercise. As organizations expand, maintaining that discipline becomes increasingly important.

Patent Strategy Requires Global Coordination

Patent strategy is another area where foreign companies frequently encounter unexpected challenges during U.S. expansion. Many executives assume that because patent protection exists globally, patent rules operate similarly across jurisdictions. They do not.

Public disclosures, customer demonstrations, trade shows, investor presentations, marketing materials and technical publications can all affect patent rights. The timing of those activities often matters, and the consequences can vary from one country to another.

Global patent strategy often involves considerations that extend beyond the patent laws of any single country. As research and development activities become distributed across multiple jurisdictions, companies may need to consider issues such as inventor location, foreign filing restrictions, export-control implications and the sequencing of patent filings across different markets. Decisions regarding where innovation is developed, where patent applications are first filed and how technical information is shared among global teams can all affect the available filing strategy.

In certain industries, patent strategy may also intersect with export controls, national security regulations and restrictions on the cross-border transfer of technical information, making coordination among legal, technical and business teams increasingly important.

Returning to our German automotive supplier example, imagine that engineers develop a significant improvement to an advanced sensor platform. Excited by the commercial opportunity, the company showcases the innovation at a U.S. trade show before fully evaluating its patent strategy. Depending on the jurisdictions involved, public disclosure may affect the company's ability to obtain patent protection in the future.

The lesson is not that companies should avoid discussing innovation or pursuing global patent protection. Rather, patent planning should occur before major disclosures take place and before filing decisions are made.

Understanding Third-Party Intellectual Property Risks

When entering the U.S. market, companies often focus on protecting their own patents, trade secrets and proprietary technologies. Equally important, however, is understanding whether existing intellectual property rights owned by others could affect commercialization efforts.

Depending on the industry and technology involved, products, manufacturing processes, software, branding or other business activities may be affected by patents, trademarks, copyrights or trade secrets held by third parties. In some cases, companies choose to conduct a freedom-to-operate assessment before significant product launches or market expansion activities to help identify potential risks and evaluate available mitigation strategies.

While not every business requires a formal analysis, considering third-party intellectual property exposure early can help reduce the likelihood of costly disputes, business disruptions or unexpected barriers to growth after entering the U.S. market.

Cross-Border Research and Development Creates New Challenges

One of the greatest strengths of multinational organizations is their ability to leverage expertise across multiple markets. The same characteristic can also create intellectual property challenges.

Research and development activities increasingly involve employees, contractors, universities, strategic partners and affiliated entities located in different countries. While this approach can accelerate innovation, it can also complicate questions of ownership, governance and commercialization rights.

Consider a situation in which the German parent company funds development, engineers employed by the U.S. subsidiary create significant technical improvements, a university partner performs testing and an outside software developer contributes code. Questions quickly arise regarding who owns the resulting intellectual property, who controls patent filings, which entity may commercialize the technology and how future licensing rights will be managed.

These questions are far easier to answer before development begins than after a successful product reaches the market. As innovation becomes increasingly global, companies should think proactively about how research activities are structured and governed across entities and jurisdictions.

Intellectual Property Problems Often Surface During Transactions

One reason intellectual property issues are frequently underestimated is that they often remain invisible for years. A company may operate successfully, generate revenue and continue innovating without encountering any obvious problems. Then a strategic investor arrives. Or a private equity firm begins diligence. Or an acquisition opportunity emerges.

At that point, intellectual property ownership and governance become central areas of review. Investors and acquirers routinely seek confirmation that the company owns its key technologies, that employee and contractor inventions have been properly assigned, that trade secrets are adequately protected and that ownership structures are clearly documented. They may also review trademark portfolios, licensing arrangements and potential third-party infringement risks that could affect future operations.

Issues that appeared insignificant during day-to-day operations can suddenly affect valuation, transaction timelines, negotiating leverage and deal certainty. For many companies, the true value of proactive intellectual property planning becomes apparent only when an important transaction is underway.

The Cost of Getting It Wrong

Failures in intellectual property governance rarely create immediate operational crises. Instead, they create strategic risk. Ownership disputes, loss of trade secret protection, delayed transactions, reduced company valuations, increased litigation costs, licensing disputes and limitations on future commercialization opportunities are all potential consequences of inadequate planning.

The objective is not to eliminate every possible risk. Rather, it is to ensure that the company's most valuable assets remain protected as the organization grows and evolves.

Early Action Items for Expanding Companies

Before or shortly after launching U.S. operations, companies should consider:

Reviewing employee and contractor agreements for invention assignment provisions

Evaluating which entity should own future intellectual property

Reviewing key trademarks, brands and product names for U.S. availability and protection

Identifying and protecting key trade secrets

Coordinating patent strategy across jurisdictions

Evaluating potential third-party intellectual property risks associated with products, technologies and commercialization activities

Establishing governance protocols for multinational R&amp;D activities

Reviewing confidentiality and information-sharing practices

Aligning intellectual property planning with broader tax, corporate and business objectives

These steps are often relatively straightforward when implemented early. They become substantially more difficult after a dispute arises, a key employee departs or a major transaction is underway.

Why a Layered Understanding Matters

As discussed throughout this series, successful U.S. expansion rarely involves a single legal discipline. Intellectual property strategy often intersects with corporate structure, tax planning, immigration strategy, export controls, employment law and workforce planning. Decisions made in one area frequently affect outcomes in another. Companies that recognize these connections early are generally better positioned to scale efficiently, attract investment, protect enterprise value and avoid costly surprises as they grow.

For foreign companies entering the United States, intellectual property should not be viewed as a standalone legal issue addressed during company formation. Instead, it should be viewed as a strategic business asset that requires ongoing protection as the organization grows.

Companies that navigate U.S. expansion most successfully are the companies that establish clear ownership structures, protect confidential information, coordinate innovation across borders and integrate intellectual property planning into their broader growth strategy.

Protecting innovation is not something that happens after U.S. expansion. It is one of the foundations that allows successful expansion to occur in the first place.

This article is part of The U.S. Expansion Playbook, a series designed to help foreign companies enter and grow in the United States with clarity and confidence. Each installment addresses a critical stage of U.S. market entry — from structure and incentives to workforce strategy, regulatory exposure and long-term risk management.

Warner’s International Business and Trade team works across corporate, tax, regulatory, intellectual property, litigation and immigration disciplines to help foreign companies navigate U.S. expansion strategically and sustainably.

The U.S. Expansion Playbook

Associate

Jonathan Altes

John H. Schulte

International Business and Trade

The U.S. Expansion Playbook: Protecting Your Most Valuable Asset: Intellectual Property Strategy for Foreign Companies Entering the United States

Warner Norcross + Judd LLP is responsible for the contents of our advertising and this website. Please read our full <a href="/privacy-policy/" aria-label="see privacy policy">privacy policy</a> available on our website. If you have any questions or comments about our website or our Privacy Policy please contact us at <a href="mailto:info@wnj.com">info@wnj.com</a> or 616.752.2000.

The U.S. Expansion Playbook: Protecting Your Most Valuable Asset: Intellectual Property Strategy for Foreign Companies Entering the United States

professionals