Let's chat!
Click HERE to book a call
Insights

PATTERN INSIGHT 5 - The Market Position Decision

Growing companies that commit to a specific market position still need contracts and IP protection to defend it.
|
Posted on
April 20, 2026
|
Clock Icon
7
Minute Read

Most companies eventually start chasing everyopportunity that looks like the one already working. More offerings, moremarkets, more products that seem adjacent enough to make sense. It feels likegrowth. Often it just spreads the same resources over more surface area, andthe company stops being known for anything in particular.

Season 2 of The Breakout CEO Podcast surfaced adifferent approach across five founders working in manufacturing, salestechnology, cybersecurity, venture acceleration, and podcasting. Each onereached a moment where staying broad stopped working, and each one chose tocompete for a narrow, specific position instead of trying to serve everyone.

This Pattern Insight examines how thosepositioning decisions got made, and the legal and governance work growingcompanies need to do once they commit to a specific market instead of a broadone.

The Pattern

A market position is a decision, not something that happens by default. Companies that deliberately choose where to compete, and just as deliberately choose where not to, build a defensible advantage. Companies that keep expanding into every adjacent opportunity usually end up strong at nothing.

Spencer Loveless discovered 3D printing while searching for a faster way to bring new vacuum designs to market inside his family's company, Dustless Technologies. Instead of competing on price or volume against injection molding and Chinese manufacturers, Merit3D positioned itself around a specific capability: fast turnaround on small and mid-sized batches that traditional manufacturing can't produce quickly. It took Spencer's team a year of testing to find a process that met the cost, quality, and scalability bar the position required. That focus produced results like a 62,000-piece order delivered in a single day and Merit3D's first part sold into Walmart.

Zach Barney built Mobly around an unmeasured category he had lived personally as a private equity operating executive. Companies could measure every dollar of digital marketing spend, but in-person marketing, trade shows, conferences, and sponsorships remained an untracked black box. Before quitting his job, Zach and his co-founder interviewed thirty companies about the problem. Twenty-nine said the problem was real and confirmed they would pay to have it solved. Mobly's first product was a deliberately narrow wedge, a mobile app that captured and verified contact information at events. The company expanded from that foundation only after the position was validated.

Shay Levi co-founded No Name Security to secure the API layer inside the cybersecurity market, a decision investors initially rejected as a crowded, me too category. Shay and his co-founder held the position anyway, based on direct signal from the security professionals they had interviewed. No Name became the leading company in API security and sold to Akamai for roughly half a billion dollars in 2024. At his next company, Unframe, Shay applied the same instinct to a different problem, positioning the business around fully custom enterprise AI builds delivered in about a week, an offer he says no other company in the market makes.

Andrew Ackerman helped reposition Dreamit Ventures after recognizing it could never out-execute Y Combinator or Techstars in the crowded early-stage generalist accelerator market. Instead of continuing to compete in that lane, Dreamit shifted to later-stage, vertically focused startups that corporate partners actually wanted to work with, a position nobody else occupied at the time. Andrew describes the underlying principle plainly. A startup only needs to be exceptional at one thing, and merely adequate at everything else. Trying to be somewhat better across many features rarely beats being unmatched at the one thing customers actually need.

Alex Sanfilippo had built eleven differently branded offerings inside the podcasting space before a stranger at a conference asked him what he actually did, and more than half the room nodded along with her confusion. Alex spent the next several years consolidating everything under one brand, PodMatch, cutting offerings that didn't serve the core business and folding the rest into a single platform. The instinct to keep adding things had felt like growth at the time. Sustained growth came only after Alex chose what to stop doing.

To read Alex's full story, check out our blog post 👉
FOCUS INSIGHT 5 — Alex Sanfilippo: When Nobody Knows What You Do (Episode 47)

The Legal and Governance Risks

Risk 1: Brand and Trademark Consolidation Gaps

When a company narrows from multiple offerings into one core brand, the retired names, domains, and marks don't simply disappear. They create risk if customers under old agreements are confused about who they're doing business with, if a retired trademark was never properly registered or cleared in the first place, or if a competitor picks up an abandoned brand and causes confusion in the market. Alex Sanfilippo folded eleven different offerings into PodMatch, a consolidation every company narrowing its brand needs to document formally.

Legal Actions to Address Brand and Trademark Consolidation Gaps:

  • Conduct trademark clearance and registration for the surviving brand before consolidation becomes public and difficult to reverse.
  • Formally transfer or retire IP, domains, and social accounts tied to discontinued offerings, and document the transition.
  • Notify customers under legacy brand agreements of the consolidation and confirm which entity and terms now govern the relationship.
  • Review consolidated marketing and service claims for consistency with the surviving brand's registered trademark class and scope.

Risk 2: Entity and IP Separation When Spinning Off a Focused Business

When a specific opportunity grows into its own company, the legal separation matters as much as the business decision. Merit3D was incorporated as its own entity, separate from Dustless Technologies, once the 3D printing opportunity outgrew a side project. Shay Levi left No Name Security to start Unframe within weeks of the acquisition closing. Founders who spin off a new focus without clean entity and IP separation risk disputes over ownership, exposure to non-compete or non-solicit claims from a former company or investor, and confusion during any future financing or sale.

Legal Actions to Address Entity and IP Separation When Spinning Off a Focused Business:

  • Form the new entity properly and document capital contributions, ownership splits, and governance before the business gains meaningful revenue.
  • Confirm through written assignment which IP belongs to the new entity versus any parent company or prior employer.
  • Review any non-compete, non-solicit, or confidentiality obligations from a prior company or investor before launching a closely related business.
  • Keep the new entity's finances, contracts, and operations fully separate from any parent or predecessor company from day one.

Risk 3: Customer Contracts and Service Scope Misalignment

A deliberate market position often means the business being run today looks nothing like the one described in older customer contracts, pricing sheets, or terms of service. Dreamit rebuilt its entire program and financial structure to serve later-stage startups and corporate partners, a different customer base with different needs than the one its original agreements were written for. Companies that reposition without updating their contracts risk enforcing terms that no longer match what they actually deliver, or leaving gaps in ownership of the data and deliverables the new position depends on.

Legal Actions to Address Customer Contracts and Service Scope Misalignment:

  • Review standard customer and vendor agreements after any significant repositioning to confirm scope of services still matches what the business delivers.
  • Update data ownership and IP provisions in customer contracts to reflect new products, such as enriched data sets or platform outputs tied to the new position.
  • Retire or amend legacy agreements that reference discontinued products or business lines to avoid conflicting obligations.
  • Confirm pricing, service level, and termination terms are consistent across all active customer agreements following a repositioning.

Risk 4: Competitive Positioning and Trade Secret Exposure

A defensible market position is itself a competitive asset, and it deserves the same legal protection as any other one. Shay Levi held to a specific market thesis against direct investor skepticism, and Zach Barney built Mobly around a category most competitors had not identified yet. Employees, contractors, and even advisors who understand exactly why a company positioned itself the way it did can walk that insight to a competitor without strong agreements in place.

Legal Actions to Address Competitive Positioning and Trade Secret Exposure:

  • Confirm employment and contractor agreements include enforceable confidentiality, invention assignment, and non-solicit provisions appropriate to the jurisdiction.
  • Limit access to market research, positioning strategy, and competitive analysis to employees and advisors who need it.
  • Use nondisclosure agreements before sharing positioning strategy or roadmap details with prospective partners, investors, or vendors.
  • Review advisor and board agreements to confirm confidentiality obligations extend to strategic and positioning information, not just financials.

Why Growing Companies Use a Fractional Legal Team

The trademark filings, the entity formations, the contract updates, the confidentiality agreements: none of this happens in a single conversation with counsel, and none of it holds up if it only gets addressed after a dispute starts. It has to be built alongside the business decision itself, at the moment a company commits to a specific position.

FraxLaw works alongside companies as they make these positioning decisions, clearing trademarks before a brand consolidation goes public, structuring new entities correctly when a focused opportunity becomes its own business, and building the confidentiality protections that keep a hard-won market position from walking out the door. The founders in this season who committed to a specific position treated the legal work as part of making that commitment, not as a follow-up task.

For Spencer Loveless it took a year of testing to find the right balance of cost, quality, and scale. For Zach Barney it took thirty customer interviews before he trusted what he saw. For Shay Levi it took holding a position his own investors initially called wrong. For Andrew Ackerman it took admitting Dreamit could never win by playing in the same lane as Y Combinator and Techstars. For Alex Sanfilippo it took a stranger's honest confusion at a conference to see that eleven offerings had made him invisible.

Every one of them said no to something in order to say yes to a specific position. That decision came before any legal work, but the legal work is what makes the decision durable. Companies that pick a position and protect it with clean entities, updated contracts, and real confidentiality agreements are the ones that get to keep the advantage they built. Companies that skip that work usually find out how much the position was worth only after someone else takes it.

Jeff Holman
Jeff Holman draws from a broad background that spans law, engineering, and business. He is driven to deploy strategic business initiatives that create enterprise value and establish operational efficiencies.

Sign up for Our Newsletter

Want to receive occasional updates with our latest content and ideas? Join our newsletter!
Thank you! Your submission has been received!
Oops! Something went wrong while submitting the form.
Your privacy is our top priority. Unsubscribe anytime.