Layered IP Strategies: Ruth Orpwood on Protecting Innovation Across Rights

In today’s innovation-driven economy, no single form of intellectual property is enough. With AI, digital platforms, and global customers reshaping how technology is created and shared, businesses need layered strategies that combine patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets to stay competitive.

We’re excited to welcome Ruth Orpwood, General Counsel at Hitachi ZeroCarbon, to Future IP UK. With over two decades of experience leading global IP portfolios, negotiating high-value licensing deals, and guiding organisations through market disruption, Ruth will share her expertise on the panel “Layered IP Strategies: Protecting Innovation Across Different IP Rights.”

In this interview, Ruth discusses the impact of generative AI on licensing frameworks, the governance models that keep IP decisions aligned across organisations, and how companies can navigate tough negotiations with multinational customers.

---

What trends are you seeing in the IP landscape that excite you?

I think the most fascinating trend right now is the impact of Large Language Models and generative AI. The sheer demand for training data and content is forcing us to rethink how creative works are licensed and distributed. It reminds me of the Napster-to-Spotify journey - an industry forced into a new licensing model almost Overnight.

What excites me is the debate around whether we’ll see new forms of collective bargaining or rights management for creators, so there is some form of compensation when I ask ChatGPT to generate music “in the style of Bad Bunny” for example. Of course, the challenge is immense: these models are opaque, creators are fragmented, and a global governance mechanism doesn’t yet exist.

My concern is that without some kind of structure, the models will inevitably cannibalise themselves by training on AI-generated content rather than human creativity and the quality of output will degrade. That creates a real opportunity for those of us working in IP to help shape the frameworks that will keep the ecosystem healthy, fair, and innovative.

What governance structures work best for coordinating IP decisions across large organisations?

In most organisations, IP is a critical but underappreciated asset — it needs to be captured, protected, enforced, and monitored with speed and coordination. In my experience, the most effective structure is an IP steering committee that brings together representatives from R&D, Tech, Legal, Finance, Sales, and Marketing.

That committee only works if you also have clear pathways for employees at every level and in every geography to flag opportunities. Modest engineers, for example, often underestimate the novelty of their ideas - so regular training is essential to surface those inventions.

And finally, IP governance needs to be grounded in business reality: what are the budget constraints, where do we need to prioritise, and when does it make sense to rely on unregistered rights in early stage brands rather than incurring registration costs? A cross-functional forum helps everyone understand the trade-offs, so IP decisions support the company’s overall strategy rather than happening in isolation.

What are some of the toughest challenges companies face when supplying IP to large multinational customers?

The “David and Goliath” dynamic is very real. Start-ups and smaller suppliers are often desperate to secure a marquee customer, but the imbalance in bargaining power can lead to unsustainable IP obligations. There isn’t a single magic solution, but I’ve found five practical strategies that can help level the playing field:

1. Differentiate your offering: if your technology is niche and high quality, even the giants need you. That gives you leverage.

2. Invest in the relationship:  I’ve seen tier-one customers decide not to enforce indemnities simply because we provided exceptional technical support and built genuine trust.

3. Reframe liability caps: argue that they should be proportionate to the revenue opportunity, not the customer’s total exposure. Otherwise, a single indemnity could put a smaller supplier out of business, which helps no one.

4. Narrow the indemnity trigger: limit obligations to a “finding of infringement by a court of competent jurisdiction” to avoid endless costs from trolls or other speculative claims.

5. Be realistic about insurance: most IP insurance looks good on paper but, in practice, premiums are high and exclusions wide. It’s rarely the safety net companies expect.

These approaches won’t win every time, but they can shift the conversation from pure contract risk allocation to sustainability of the partnership.

What do you want the audience to take away from hearing you speak at Future IP UK?

That IP is not static - it’s constantly evolving alongside technology, markets, and business models. The most effective in-house lawyers are those who stay open- minded, adapt to new contexts, and look for ways to turn challenges into opportunities. Whether it’s AI, global licensing structures, or rethinking governance, there’s always room for creativity.

---

As Ruth Orpwood highlights, IP is never static, it evolves alongside markets, technologies, and business models. The most effective in-house leaders are those who can adapt, align governance with business realities, and turn IP challenges into opportunities for growth.

---

Join Ruth and other leading experts at Future IP UK to explore how layered IP strategies can protect innovation and deliver real business value.

Written by Min Nguyen, Content Executive