For companies with expansive intellectual property portfolios, patent maintenance is one of the most persistent—and often least examined—cost centers. Global portfolios can quietly drain millions of dollars annually in annuity payments, foreign agent fees, and coordination costs, particularly in jurisdictions that no longer align with the company’s market strategy. Law firms have both a duty and an opportunity to guide their clients’ directors and officers through a deliberate review process that aligns patent holdings with business realities, helping to reduce waste, manage legal risk, and preserve long-term IP value.

I. The Oversized Legacy of Over-Filing

When companies file patent applications, particularly in the early stages of product or technology development, the full scope of the commercial opportunity is often speculative. Businesses may file widely across multiple jurisdictions—optimistically anticipating global market penetration that does not ultimately materialize. As a result, many companies find themselves, years later, holding dozens or even hundreds of foreign patents in countries where they have no active operations, no sales, and no clear risk of competitive entry.

Take, for example, a company with 500 issued U.S. patents, but only 7 in Spain, 9 in Australia, 4 in Japan, and 11 in Russia. If the company requires 500 patents to protect its U.S. operations, it is unlikely that just a handful of patents would be sufficient to secure its interests in other industrialized nations. Either the U.S. portfolio is bloated, or the foreign portfolios are insufficient—or both. The asymmetry raises a critical governance question: What is so special about those 9 Australian patents that they are uniquely capable of defending the company’s business there? If they are essential, perhaps more filings are needed. If not, why are they being maintained at all?

II. The Law Firm’s Role in Global Rationalization

Law firms are uniquely positioned to help clients conduct jurisdictional reviews that bring strategy and discipline to patent maintenance. This includes:

A. Reviewing Jurisdictional Relevance

Firms should assist clients in mapping their patent holdings against their actual and anticipated business presence in each jurisdiction. Where patents are maintained in countries with minimal or no addressable market, legal counsel should initiate a review of whether those rights are still necessary. For example, a U.S. pharmaceutical company might continue maintaining patents in Argentina or South Africa despite having no active distribution or enforcement capacity in those countries.

B. Identifying High-Cost, Low-Return Assets

Foreign patents are not only costly due to annuity fees, but also because they require ongoing coordination with local counsel. In countries such as Japan, Brazil, and India, where translation and procedural requirements are complex, maintenance costs can be disproportionately high. Law firms can help clients identify and abandon low-value patents that are not strategically or commercially justified.

C. Facilitating Pruning or Monetization

Rather than simply allowing unused patents to lapse, law firms can help clients explore divestiture, licensing, or donation to reduce costs while potentially creating value. For instance, large tech companies have transferred underutilized patents to defensive aggregators or industry consortiums to offset tax burdens or gain strategic alliances.

D. Institutionalizing a Portfolio Review Process

Firms can support the creation of an annual or biannual patent review process, involving business, legal, and technical stakeholders. This institutionalizes discipline around maintenance decisions and allows directors and officers to demonstrate fiduciary oversight. Legal advisors can prepare board-ready summaries of findings and recommendations.

III. Leveraging Platforms Like PatenTrack

Technology platforms such as PatenTrack can streamline this process by providing actionable insights into a company’s global patent holdings. The platform can:

• Visualize the geographic distribution of patents across jurisdictions
• Highlight maintenance costs per country and asset
• Flag assets with low usage, outdated subject matter, or no enforcement history
• Identify asymmetries between R&D focus and territorial coverage

Using PatenTrack, law firms can generate data-driven reports that help directors and officers make informed, defensible decisions about where to invest, where to reduce, and where to exit.

In a time when corporate boards are under increasing pressure to maximize asset value and reduce inefficiency, patent portfolio rationalization is a clear area of opportunity. Law firms have a professional obligation to help their clients evaluate not just what they have, but why they have it, and whether the ongoing investment is justified.

By helping clients align their patent holdings with real business needs, particularly across costly and underutilized jurisdictions, law firms can deliver tangible financial value while reinforcing their role as strategic advisors. With tools like PatenTrack, they can do so with speed, precision, and clarity—helping corporate leaders make confident decisions in the best interest of the business.