How IP due diligence works in M&A, why ownership gaps sink technology and brand deals, and exactly where a legal IP finding becomes a hard financial due diligence number.
A buyer paid a premium for a software company whose entire pitch rested on "proprietary technology built in-house". Deep in the IP diligence, a lawyer noticed that the two engineers who wrote the original core engine had been freelancers, paid on invoice, with no contract assigning their work to the company. In that jurisdiction, absent an explicit assignment, the code belonged to them. The business had been selling something it did not fully own. The deal did not collapse — but the price moved, an escrow appeared, and a chunk of the purchase-price allocation narrative had to be rewritten. In technology and brand-driven deals, the asset a buyer is really paying for is often the IP — and whether the target cleanly owns it is not a legal footnote. It is the deal.
For an industrial business with factories and inventory, intellectual property is one line among many. For a pharmaceutical developer, a software vendor, a media brand, or a consumer business built on a trademark, IP can be the majority of enterprise value. Everything else — the revenue, the margins, the growth story — ultimately depends on the target's right to exploit its patents, code, trademarks, and know-how without interference and without paying someone else for the privilege.
That is why IP diligence, usually the quietest workstream in the data room, can produce the single most consequential finding in the entire process. A revenue-quality issue chips the price. An ownership gap in the core asset can question whether there is anything to buy at all. As an FDD analyst you will not run patent searches, but you must know where an IP finding lands on your page — because several of them land squarely in the financials.
IP due diligence is typically led by specialist IP lawyers and verifies three things, in plain terms: does the target own it, is it protected, and is it clean of infringement.
The most common and most dangerous IP finding, especially at smaller and founder-led businesses, is defective chain of title: IP developed by a contractor, freelancer, agency, or even a departed employee, without a written agreement properly assigning ownership to the company. In many jurisdictions, absent an explicit assignment clause, IP created by a contractor belongs to the contractor, not the business that paid for it. The "proprietary" technology or logo the target has marketed to buyers may not be fully, legally its own to sell.
This is not a hypothetical lawyer's worry — it is a financial finding. An unresolved ownership gap is a real contingent exposure: the buyer may need to fund costly remediation (tracking down former contractors to sign retrospective assignments, often from a weak negotiating position once they realise why they are being asked) or, worst case, face litigation. That is exactly the kind of item you would size and flag in a red flags review, and it should feed the buyer's view on price, escrow, and specific indemnities in the SPA.
The buyer's real question is never "is the patent nicely framed on the wall?" It is "if I write this cheque, do I own the thing I'm paying for, free and clear, with nobody able to take it, tax it, or sue me for using it?" IP diligence answers that question — and the answer routinely reshapes the financial model.
Three IP findings cross directly onto the FDD desk, and each changes a figure you own.
Consider a SaaS target agreed at £60m enterprise value, where IP diligence surfaces a defective-assignment issue on the original core engine and a third-party licence buried in the cost base. The legal findings are qualitative; the buyer needs them in pounds. Here is how a coordinated team turns the memo into a number.
| Finding | Legal characterisation | Financial treatment | Estimated impact |
|---|---|---|---|
| Core engine written by unassigned freelancers | Defective chain of title | Remediation cost + risk-adjusted contingency | −£1.5m escrow / price chip |
| £0.4m/yr capitalised dev on the disputed engine | Aggressive capitalisation | Partly reverse to opex; reduce intangibles | −£0.4m EBITDA, −£1.2m assets |
| Undisclosed third-party licence, 6% royalty | Recurring cost + change-of-control termination | Book royalty in maintainable earnings; flag renewal risk | −£0.6m recurring EBITDA |
| Net effect on the buyer's view | ~£1.0m EBITDA lower + escrow |
Nothing here required a courtroom. It required an IP lawyer to spot the gap and an FDD analyst to translate three legal findings into a lower maintainable-earnings figure, a rebuilt intangibles balance, and a specific escrow — the difference between a buyer walking in informed and a buyer walking in blind.
It is worth dwelling on why the licence line is so easy to miss. A royalty embedded in cost of sales rarely announces itself; it looks like any other supplier payment until someone reads the contract behind it. Yet its terms can be decisive. An exclusive licence that the counterparty can terminate on twelve months' notice caps the target's strategic optionality; a licence that terminates automatically on a change of control hands the counterparty enormous leverage the moment a sale is announced. Neither risk is visible in the numbers alone — you only see it by pairing the cost-base review with the legal read of the agreement, which is precisely why the FDD and IP workstreams have to talk. The analyst who spots a suspiciously specific recurring cost and asks "what contract sits behind this?" is doing exactly the job.
Not all IP is patents and code. For a consumer or retail business, the trademark and brand estate can be the crown jewel — and it fails in quieter ways: a flagship mark registered in the home market but not in the countries the growth plan targets, a domain lapsing into a squatter's hands, or a brand used for years without formal registration and therefore vulnerable. Each of these caps or complicates the expansion narrative the buyer is paying a multiple for, and each connects to how durable the target's revenue really is — the same durability lens you apply in a revenue quality analysis. A brand you cannot protect in your target markets is a growth story with a hole in it.
There is also a timing dimension that catches buyers out. Fixing an IP defect is rarely instant. Tracking down a former contractor to sign a retrospective assignment can take weeks and often costs money, because the contractor now understands exactly why their signature suddenly matters. Registering a trademark in a new jurisdiction runs on the relevant office's timetable, not the deal's. So an ownership gap discovered late does not only carry a price — it carries a delay, and delay in a competitive process can be as damaging as cost. The earlier IP diligence flags a defect, the more room the buyer has to insist the seller remediates it before completion rather than funding an escrow to cover a problem that may never fully resolve.
The professional habit mirrors every other adjacent workstream. Ask early whether IP diligence is in scope on your deal — on a technology or brand-heavy target it always should be. Pull the findings that touch money: anything affecting capitalised development, licensing expense, or a contingent liability. And reconcile deliberately, so that each material IP finding is traceable to a line in your EBITDA bridge, your balance-sheet review, or a clearly flagged risk. That reconciliation is simply good practice within a coordinated financial due diligence process; it is also how an analyst quietly demonstrates they see the whole deal, not just their own tab.
IP is a favourite way to test whether you connect legal findings to financial consequences. Expect: "In a software deal, why would you care about the intellectual property review?"
"Because an IP finding almost always turns into one of my numbers. The classic issue is defective chain of title — core code or a key trademark developed by a contractor with no assignment clause, so the target doesn't cleanly own the very thing the buyer is paying for. That's a contingent liability I'd size and flag: remediation cost, an escrow, or a specific indemnity in the SPA. It also hits the financials in two other ways. First, capitalised development costs — if the underlying IP is disputed or licensed rather than owned, aggressive capitalisation both inflates the balance sheet and flatters historical earnings through lower amortisation, so it feeds my EBITDA adjustments. Second, any third-party licences the product depends on are recurring costs in my maintainable-earnings view, and if a licence terminates on change of control that's a real continuity risk. So I'd confirm IP diligence is in scope early, pull anything touching capitalised costs, licensing, or ownership, and make sure each finding is traceable to a line in my model. A purely statement-driven FDD would never catch an unassigned-freelancer problem on its own."
That answer lands because it starts with the single highest-impact finding — ownership — and then shows three concrete places it changes the model.
If there is one habit to build, it is to stop reading the IP report as legal housekeeping and start reading it as a source of your own numbers. Ownership drives intangible values and amortisation; capitalisation policy drives both the balance sheet and historical earnings; licence terms drive recurring cost and continuity risk. Each of those is a line you are responsible for, and each can be got wrong by an analyst who assumes the lawyers have it covered.
In a factory business, you can kick the tyres. In a technology or brand deal, the tyres are intangible — a patent, a codebase, a name — and the only way to kick them is to prove the target owns them, free and clear, before the money moves. Learn to read the IP report as a source of your own numbers rather than someone else's paperwork, and you catch the finding that a purely financial review, working alone, would never see coming. In these deals, ownership is not a detail. It is the whole point.
The Transaction Services Interview Programme (€119.99, one-time) includes a dedicated IP-and-intangibles module — turning ownership gaps, capitalised development, and licence obligations into EBITDA adjustments, balance-sheet corrections, and priced contingent liabilities, with worked examples and interview answers. Enrol today.
Hundreds of candidates prepared their interviews with this programme. Those who landed the role have one thing in common: they worked the cases before walking into the room.
