In a recent LinkedIn post, Kathryn V. highlights a significant legal case involving Samsung and two founders, using it as a critical lesson for entrepreneurs and investors regarding the importance of intellectual property (IP) protection. Kathryn V. details how a jury found Samsung willfully infringed on patents held by the founders of a company built on an idea that was ahead of its time, leading to a $78.5 million judgment.
Two founders… And a company built around an idea most people didn’t yet understand.
The Power of Early IP Protection
Kathryn V. emphasizes that the founders, Jonathan Steuer and Chris Otto, had the foresight to protect their innovative approach to tracking user viewing data for targeted advertising through patents. This strategic move, she explains, established the patent itself as the primary asset, even before the company achieved significant scale in terms of product, traction, or revenue.
According to Kathryn V., the core message for founders is clear: the value of their intellectual property is established at the time of filing. “You don’t need to be shipping at scale to have IP that’s worth protecting,” Kathryn V. writes, underscoring that the filing date is a non-negotiable and foundational element of IP value.
The patent is the asset.
Kathryn V. points out that while other business elements like product development, market traction, and revenue are crucial, they can be developed over time. However, the timing of the IP filing is fixed and cannot be retroactively changed, making early patent protection paramount.
Investor Implications: Assets vs. Liabilities
The insights shared by Kathryn V. extend significantly to investors. She posits that every company funded by investors occupies a position on a spectrum defined by its IP security. On one end are companies with defensible IP that represents a tangible asset on the company’s capitalization table.
They either hold defensible IP around something that matters… and that’s an asset on your cap table.
On the other end are companies potentially building on patented technology owned by others. Kathryn V. frames this situation as a liability that may not have been adequately accounted for during the investment due diligence process.
The Role of Freedom-to-Operate Analysis
To mitigate such risks, Kathryn V. strongly advocates for conducting thorough freedom-to-operate (FTO) analyses. She argues that these assessments are vital for investors and founders to understand the IP landscape surrounding a business before costly legal disputes arise.
“Freedom-to-operate analysis tells you which one you’re looking at before it costs $78.5 million to find out,” Kathryn V. states, highlighting the proactive and preventative value of such due diligence. She concludes by stressing that a greater understanding of these IP principles among founders and investors ultimately strengthens the entire business ecosystem.
Kathryn V. encourages engagement by asking readers to tag founders or investors who would benefit from this information, reinforcing her belief that education is key to better protection within the innovation space.
📝 About This Content
This article is based on insights shared by Kathryn V. on LinkedIn.
📅 Originally posted on April 16, 2026 | View original post on LinkedIn →