Valuing intellectual property answers a commercial question: what income does the portfolio generate, what risk does it remove, and what strategic position does it enable? A defensible valuation matters for licensing, fundraising, an acquisition, a dispute, and, in Belgium, for the tax position on IP income.
There are three established approaches. The cost-based method asks what you spent creating and registering the IP. The market-based method asks what comparable rights change hands for. The income-based method asks what income stream the IP generates or enables. Each suits different situations, and a robust valuation usually triangulates between them rather than relying on one.
A valuation is only as good as the data behind it, and that data improves as the commercial track record grows. For Belgian companies the link to the innovation income deduction is direct: a sound valuation of qualifying IP income informs the deduction on both the IP embedded in your own product sales and on third-party licensing revenue. That makes valuation a recurring discipline tied to portfolio performance, not a number you produce once.
Valuation supports our IP portfolio intelligence work and connects directly to the innovation income deduction. The fiscal background sits in grants and tax incentives for IP, and valuation is a core input to IP due diligence when you raise money or sell. Keeping the portfolio current is supported by our portfolio and renewals technology.
Cost-based (what you spent), market-based (what comparable rights trade for), and income-based (what income the IP generates). Each is strengthened by ongoing portfolio performance data.
Because the innovation income deduction is calculated on qualifying IP income, and a defensible valuation underpins both the embedded-royalty and the licensing components of that calculation.
%402x.svg){kind=small}
%402x.svg){kind=icon}
%402x.svg){kind=icon}
