IPSE on the Next Chapter of Intellectual Property Financing in an Economy Defined by Intangible Value
Intellectual property appears to be becoming an increasingly prominent contributor to enterprise value as patents, copyrights, trademarks, software, data, and other intangible assets gain economic significance alongside physical assets. Corporate intangible assets were estimated to have approached $100 trillion by 2025, illustrating their expanding role in the global economy. Within this environment, Intellectual Property Securities Corporation (IPSE) observes that financing and monetizing IP through conventional capital market structures may still present challenges, creating an opportunity to reconsider how these assets participate in modern finance.
This changing landscape may invite a broader discussion about the relationship between innovation and capital. IP often represents years of research, creative effort, technical expertise, and commercial potential, yet translating that value into accessible financing can involve structures originally designed for asset classes with different characteristics. IPSE views this as an opportunity to develop financial frameworks that recognize the distinctive qualities of IP while remaining aligned with established market principles.
Marc Deschenaux, founder and President of IPSE, offers a perspective shaped by decades of work spanning technology, finance, and law. He explains, “Innovation deserves financial structures that understand its nature instead of asking innovation to adapt itself to structures created for something else.” That observation reflects a wider conversation across financial markets as participants continue exploring methods that correspond more closely with intangible assets and their long-term economic contribution.
Part of that conversation involves examining how financing transactions are organized. Certain legal and financial processes can become highly detailed because IP combines ownership rights, contractual obligations, valuation methodologies, and commercial considerations. Transaction costs may become an obstacle in the overall process.
Deschenaux illustrates this through an example. “I worked on a patent sale, where the professional fees ended up consuming a significant portion of the transaction’s value, and because the taxes were calculated on the gross amount, not what the creator actually pocketed, the outcome differed substantially from expectations,” he shares. “Moments like that show just how much structural complexity can distort the economics of IP. For creators and innovators trying to access capital efficiently, these hidden layers can make or break the deal.”
These observations can encourage discussion about financial systems that emphasize simplicity wherever appropriate. From IPSE’s perspective, an effective IP financing model could seek to reduce unnecessary structural layers while preserving the legal certainty and investor protections associated with established securities markets. Such thinking can shift attention from extensive procedural complexity toward financial mechanisms designed specifically for IP as an asset class.
The broader economic environment provides additional context for this discussion. The estimated value of corporate intangible assets has expanded considerably over recent decades, averaging approximately one-third of global GDP during the past 10 years. Investment in intangible assets has demonstrated resilience across changing economic conditions. “These suggest that IP, software, brands, organizational knowledge, and related assets continue attracting greater attention within discussions about long-term economic development,” Deschenaux says.
For IPSE, these trends support a larger question: If intangible assets occupy an expanding position within corporate value, should financing systems continue evolving alongside them? The company suggests IP may benefit from financial structures designed specifically for its characteristics instead of relying exclusively on frameworks originally developed for different forms of capital. Its concept of direct securitization reflects that perspective by exploring ways intellectual property rights may become negotiable securities within recognized financial markets.
Deschenaux states, “I believe capital follows confidence, and confidence grows where ownership, transparency, and legal certainty exist together.” His insight suggests that financing innovation extends beyond valuation alone. Legal architecture, investor confidence, market accessibility, and operational efficiency each contribute to an environment where IP may participate more fully in capital formation.
This perspective also broadens the conversation beyond financing individual inventions, artistic works, or technologies. Deschenaux notes that IP increasingly represents ongoing research, creative industries, software development, and scientific advancement across numerous sectors. Financial models capable of reflecting these characteristics may contribute to wider participation by investors while providing creators with additional pathways for accessing capital throughout the lifecycle of their intellectual property.
IPSE’s work reflects its view that intellectual property financing continues to evolve alongside the broader economy. As intangible assets become an increasingly visible component of enterprise value, discussions surrounding financial architecture, legal efficiency, and market accessibility are, in the company’s view, likely to remain important topics among innovators, investors, and policymakers alike. Within that continuing dialogue, IP may be viewed as an asset capable of participating more actively within established capital markets through financial structures designed with its distinctive characteristics in mind.
