Commercialisation is a term that is much touted in entrepreneurial circles – although it’s not quite as popular as the term “Investor ready“! It is often titled “New Venture Development”. It stems from the creation of intellectual property (IP) that enables the owner to protect the work to exploit its commercial value.
IP Australia defines Intellectual property (IP) as “the property of your mind or intellect”. It can be an invention, trade mark, original design or the practical application of a good idea”. IP can manifest itself in the following ways:
Copyright;
Trademarks;
Registered Designs;
Patents;
Circuit layout rights;
Plant breeders rights;
Confidential information; and
Trade secrets.
What are the options for commercialisation of IP?
Commercialisation can take many forms depending on what the IP needs to maximise returns for its owners. At its heart is the attempt to maximise the commercial value by converting the IP into a saleable product or service for the benefits of its owners. Generally this involves collaborating with some third party that adds value to the IP and separating the trading entity from the owner of the IP.
The main vehicles for commercialising intellectual property include:
IP Licensing;
IP Sale (Assignment) and subsequent Licensing;
Entering into a Joint Venture;
Mergers and acquisitions; and
Spin out entity.
In all of these cases, there are a minimum of two parties, the IP owner and the party that adds value to the IP by having a market for or having access to a market that will assist to realise the value in the IP.
Licensing
A license is in essence a right to use, therefore, the terms of licence agreements can be diverse. See our article on Licensing Agreements.
Commercialisation is not an exact science. What one person believes is the best way to exploit the inherent value in any particular IP will vary from another persons. Like all things in business there will be competing opinions which all need to be considered.
Further information
Dundas Lawyers is involved in the legal aspects of commercialisation and advises on the law in this area. For further information on how Dundas Lawyers can assist your company with any of its commercialisation needs, contact us for a confidential and obligation-free discussion:
Malcolm Burrows B.Bus.,MBA.,LL.B.,LL.M.,MQLS. Legal Practice Director T: +61 7 3221 0013 (preferred) M: +61 419 726 535 E: mburrows@dundaslawyers.com.au
Disclaimer
This article contains general commentary only. You should not rely on the commentary as legal advice. Specific legal advice should be obtained to ascertain how the law applies to your particular circumstances.
In the case of Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v TPG Internet Pty Ltd [2013] HCA 54 (ACCC v TPG), the High Court of Australia (High Court) drew a distinction between mere puffery and representations with the intention of marketing. This article explores the decision in ACCC v TPG and the distinction between puffery and…
This is an update to the article “Full Court clarifies confidentiality of supplier and contact info” published by Dundas Lawyers on 24 February 2026. On 20 April 2026, the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia (Court) allowed an appeal in the case of New Aim Pty Ltd v Leung (No 4) [2026] FCAFC…
On 17 June 2026, Symons J delivered judgment in the case of Ba v Sterling Parts Australia Pty Ltd [2026] FedCFamC2G 1245 (Ba v Sterling Parts). Ba v Sterling Parts was a proceeding brought by Weiman Ba (Applicant) in the second division of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Court). Symons J dismissed…
On 15 July 2026, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese (Prime Minister) announced by media release an expansion of the Federal Government’s (Government) existing artificial intelligence (AI) governance framework, including the establishment of a new Office of AI as well as plans to legislate national standards governing large-scale data centres, AI training and the use of Australian…
On 11 March 2026, the High Court of Australia (High Court) delivered its judgment in the case of Taylor v Killer Queen, LLC [2026] HCA 5 (Taylor v Killer Queen), ending the seventeen (17) year trade mark dispute between pop star Katy Perry and Australian fashion designer Katie Jane Taylor. In a 3:2 majority decision,…
In a recent interview with InnovationAus.com, Victorian Senator Michelle Ananda-Rajah (Senator) emphasised the need to adopt digital duty of care laws for artificial intelligence (AI) companies.[1] As a representative of the ALP and former AI start-up founder, the Senator calls for the proposed digital duty of care to apply to AI companies. If implemented, the…