This shift reflects how value is now created and sustained. According to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), intangible asset value reached USD 80 trillion globally in 2024, and intangibles now account for over 90 percent of the market value of companies in the S&P 500. Investment in intangible assets has consistently outpaced investment in tangible assets since 2008, reinforcing why IP strategy is increasingly inseparable from commercial and leadership decision making.

Against that backdrop, boards and executive teams are asking not just whether their IP is protected, but whether it is aligned with where the business is heading, and whether it actively supports enterprise value.

In this article, we draw on insights from IP leaders working at the sharp end of global brands. Irina Lyapis, Director of Trademark and Brand at Atlassian, and Murray Taylor, General Counsel of Uncommon Creative Studio, share their experiences of translating IP from a traditional legal function into a strategic lever for expansion, investment and long term brand value.

Aligning IP with business

In our experience, successful legal teams take a broad, strategic approach to IP, rather than simply focusing on daily tasks. The C suite is rarely interested in filing statistics or opposition outcomes in isolation; what resonates is a clear narrative linking IP to commercial value, whether that is protecting a product launch, de risking market entry, or safeguarding licensing revenue. That shift in reporting language is often the single most impactful change an IP team can make.

This mirrors wider market practice. Recent global benchmarking shows that more than one third of IP leaders now report directly to board level executives, reflecting the growing expectation that IP supports strategic business decisions rather than operating purely as a specialist legal function.

What is often less explicit is where accountability for IP strategy formally sits. As IP becomes more commercially significant, businesses are increasingly grappling with questions of ownership and escalation, particularly where decisions cut across legal, brand, product and market strategy. Without clear executive sponsorship, even well designed IP strategies can struggle to gain traction at the moments when leadership decisions matter most.

Irina Lyapis echoes this perspective. In her view, “IP strategy and commercial objectives are two sides of the same coin; they are not sequential steps, but parallel forces that must move in lockstep to be effective.” Alignment requires internal legal teams to develop deep, high trust relationships with key stakeholders across the business, and to transition their role from reactive legal executor to proactive business advisor.

Crucially, this shift is not purely structural. It also demands a cultural change within legal and IP teams themselves. Moving from executor to strategic adviser requires confidence, commercial judgment and the ability to engage constructively with uncertainty, particularly when advising on emerging products, new markets or experimental initiatives.

Murray Taylor explains that getting senior management onside often comes down to a simple message: “A strong, well maintained portfolio can sit on the balance sheet and directly enhance the value of the business, whether in the context of investment, acquisition, or day to day commercial operations.”

This perspective also raises a broader leadership question around investment. As IP portfolios expand, boards and executive teams are under increasing pressure to understand not just cost, but return. While the value created by IP is not always immediately financial, the ability to articulate how investment supports growth, flexibility and risk mitigation is becoming a critical part of the leadership conversation.

But beyond internal alignment, an IP strategist must zoom out to analyse broader market dynamics and industry trends.  For brand-led businesses, that means understanding where the organisation is likely to grow, how consumer markets are evolving, navigating fragmented regulatory landscapes and identifying where third-party trade mark activity may create practical risk. This allows strategic, long-term decisions to be made across relevant markets.

Taylor describes a similar evolution at Uncommon. Having expanded from a UK base into the US, his team has shifted from being largely reactive to taking a more forward looking approach, enabling smoother business expansion over a multi year horizon.

As he explains, “we now take a forward looking approach, actively monitoring and filing in territories where we anticipate operating. This distinction matters when thinking about short term versus long term objectives. In the short term, IP strategy is often driven by immediate commercial activity. Over the longer term, however, brand protection requires us to think ahead of the business, not just alongside it.”

This captures a common tension we see when advising international businesses. While every organisation is focused on growth, successful short term launches often provide the commercial fuel for long term brand equity. When a product succeeds, the short term IP work becomes the foundation for long term protection.

But not every experiment works. In high growth environments, the challenge is to cast a wide enough net to protect current activities without over rotating on niche projects. Lyapis explains that “if we over invest resources into every experimental feature or pilot programme, we risk creating a fragmented portfolio that is difficult and expensive to maintain and defend.”

For businesses, an effective IP strategy therefore requires prioritisation. As Lyapis puts it, “while we must be agile enough to support innovation, the priority should always remain on the core products and services” that define the brand’s identity. This provides a secure base from which the business can explore new commercial horizons.

Strategic trade-offs in a global portfolio

One of the most complex challenges facing multinational brand owners is how to allocate finite resources across jurisdictions with different legal frameworks, enforcement cultures and commercial significance. Filing, enforcement and licensing decisions across the UK, the EU, the US, China and beyond each require a calibrated and flexible approach.

As Lyapis notes, there is no “one size fits all” strategy. Every industry has its own rhythm, and even within the same sector, companies must adapt their IP approach to factors such as customer base, revenue model and geographic footprint.

Taylor illustrates this well. Pre Brexit, the EU trade mark system offered broad territorial coverage. Today, divergence between the EU and UK regimes, alongside use based filing requirements in the US, means each jurisdiction demands a more tailored strategy. He also stresses the importance of monitoring third party filings that could erode the distinctiveness of existing rights.

Equally important is distinguishing between theoretical hurdles and practical threats. A register conflict is very different from a litigation or regulatory risk that could disrupt commercial operations. The central question for Lyapis is always: “If we lost rights in this country tomorrow, or if we were forced to rebrand, what is the magnitude of the disruption?” If the impact would be negligible, significant investment may not be justified. If it would be fundamental, that is where resources must be focused.

For leadership teams, this assessment increasingly sits within wider enterprise risk management. The loss of IP rights can trigger consequences that extend beyond legal exposure, including forced market exits, reputational damage or disruption to strategic partnerships. Framing IP risk alongside other business critical risks helps ensure it is evaluated consistently and escalated appropriately.

AI and the strategic portfolio

AI powered monitoring, clearance and risk detection tools are increasingly enabling IP teams to identify portfolio redundancies and risk concentrations more quickly than traditional audit cycles. Industry research indicates that nearly 80 percent of IP teams are already using, or actively considering, IP analytics and AI driven tools, particularly for search and portfolio analysis.

However, adoption is not uniform. Taylor advocates a pragmatic approach. While recognising the potential of AI, he places significant value on experienced external counsel and remains cautious about large scale adoption without a clear understanding of data quality, accuracy and accountability. The priority, he says, is to deploy technology where it genuinely enhances strategic outcomes, not simply to automate process.

This reflects what we see across many organisations. AI can materially improve efficiency and insight, but strategy continues to depend on experience, context and judgment.

Lessons from the courtroom

Strategy is often forged in dispute. Some of the most valuable insights IP leaders carry forward come not from portfolio planning exercises, but from the pressures of litigation, where theory meets reality.

Lyapis agrees. Her perspective has evolved over the course of her career, with some of the most formative lessons learned in litigation. As she explains, “litigation gives you the rare space to be a true architect, building a strategy from the ground up and developing theories that didn’t exist until you saw the connection. It is deeply strategic, but also a creative exercise in framing the truth.”

This reflects our own experience managing global disputes. Several recurring themes consistently emerge:

• Look beyond the immediate dispute to identify broader legal and commercial leverage across jurisdictions
• Avoid silos between different IP rights and disciplines
• Use social media strategically, as digital footprints often contradict formal legal positions and reveal how brands operate in practice
• Lean into weaknesses rather than masking them, as litigation is storytelling backed by evidence, and the most coherent narrative often prevails

As Taylor observes, a well maintained trade mark portfolio is not simply a collection of legal rights, but a business asset that can sit on the balance sheet and directly enhance company value in the context of investment, acquisition or day to day operations.

From a leadership perspective, a well structured IP portfolio also preserves strategic optionality. Whether in the context of investment, partnership or acquisition, a well planned and structured IP portfolio adds considerable value to a company. Decisions taken years earlier about ownership, scope and territorial coverage often prove decisive at critical inflection points in a business’s lifecycle.

As IP continues to shift from cost centre to strategic function, the leaders who succeed will be those who can translate portfolio decisions into the language of commercial risk and opportunity, and who are prepared to learn as much from setbacks as from successes.

IP strategy: key takeaways for boards and GCs

• IP is now a leadership issue. Intangible assets account for the vast majority of enterprise value, making IP strategy inseparable from growth, investment and risk conversations at board level.
• Alignment matters more than activity. Successful IP teams focus less on volumes and more on clearly linking portfolio decisions to commercial outcomes such as market entry, brand investment and revenue protection.
• Global portfolios require deliberate trade offs. There is no one size fits all approach. Decisions on where to file, enforce or exit should be driven by the potential consumer market and also the scale of commercial disruption if appropriate IP protection was not available.
• Technology supports strategy, but does not replace judgment. AI and analytics can enhance visibility and efficiency, but leadership decisions still rely on experience, context and an understanding of business objectives.
• Disputes sharpen strategy. Litigation often provides the clearest insight into where IP truly creates leverage and value, reinforcing the importance of coherent, commercially grounded portfolio decisions.