IP and Defensibility Review

Critically test the quality, consistency and readiness of IP and Defensibility Review. The objective is to remove ambiguity around IP, trade secrets, data advantage, network effects and competitive moat, give the founder a decision-ready output, and make it clear whether the venture should progress, repeat the task with stronger evidence, escalate to expert support, or move into a linked stage.

Bertie or a programme manager assigns IP and Defensibility Review when the venture needs a decision-ready output for this group. Typical triggers include group-gate reviews, evidence gaps identified by the co-pilot or founder request.

validated problem evidence; target user; solution concept; technical constraints; current product artefacts; existing artefact to review; specific context for IP, trade secrets, data advantage, network effects and competitive moat.

1. 1Gather Core IP and Moat Evidence Artefactsexpand_more

   Audit and collate all current documentation relating to proprietary assets, software code, algorithm designs, unique data sources, and defensibility strategies. Map existing legal filings, IP assignment agreements, trade secret registers, and initial data capture architecture into a centralized asset repository. Ensure all team and contractor IP assignments are fully documented and accessible for rigorous evaluation.

   Objective

   Compiling these materials establishes a single source of truth for the venture's defensibility posture. It ensures the subsequent review is grounded in verifiable technical and legal facts rather than optimistic assumptions.

   What's expected

   The founder must provide a complete IP register including contributor assignment contracts, repository links, and data source documentation. Every claimed proprietary element must be paired with tangible evidence of ownership, contract, or operational control.

   Consultant stress-test · 5 questions

   1. 1.What legal documentation confirms that all contractors and team members have fully assigned their intellectual property to the entity?
   2. 2.How do you prove that the core algorithms or codebases were built entirely in-house without infringing third-party open-source licences?
   3. 3.Where is the explicit boundary between standard industry operational practices and your claimed proprietary trade secrets documented?
   4. 4.What evidence demonstrates that your initial data capture mechanisms comply with UK GDPR while securing long-term proprietary data rights?
   5. 5.Why have you included specific technological assets in this audit if they can be easily replicated by an incumbent within weeks?

   Open action arrow_forward
2. 2Map the Five Pillars of Defensibilityexpand_more
3. 3Stress-Test Defensibility Against Venture Contextexpand_more
4. 4Uncover Defensibility Gaps and Legal Vulnerabilitiesexpand_more
5. 5Prioritise Risk Mitigation and Moat Validationexpand_more
6. 6Formalise Defensibility Verdict and Venture Recommendationsexpand_more

• A data-room asset titled IP and Defensibility Review
• A review note with a verdict, evidence gaps, risks, recommended corrections and a clear continue / repeat / escalate decision
• It should update the venture DNA with specific evidence or decisions about IP, trade secrets, data advantage, network effects and competitive moat, create a visible milestone in the founder journey, and generate one or more recommended next tasks

A mentor or evaluator can review the output at the group gate. Programme managers can require an advisor checkpoint before Bertie moves the venture forward.

Draft your output and let Bertie review it