Also: A deep dive into Prada's luxury operations strategy 鈥?turning top-tier VIP clients into even higher-spending customers. By Nat Ives. Welcome back. Patent application documents that once drew little attention are now creating public relations headaches for major companies.

Wal-Mart (NYSE: WMT) is a typical case, as the company once again publicly stated that it will not adopt dynamic pricing. In a "CEO Open Letter" released last Friday, Wal-Mart CEO John Furner wrote: "We will not set different prices based on who you are or the time of day, and we will never do so in the future." He continued: "Your income level, shopping history, urgency of purchase, or our subjective judgment of how much you can afford will not change the price of goods. Whether you are buying groceries on a hot afternoon or urgently grabbing electronics, none of these situations will become a reason to charge you a higher price."

Driven by new electronic shelf labels being rolled out in stores, plus two patents, questions about dynamic pricing have swirled around Wal-Mart all year: one patent is for automatically updating online product prices dynamically, and another can provide pricing suggestions based on expected market demand. Wal-Mart told the Financial Times in March that the first patent is only used for clearance markdowns, and the second is merely a tool to assist employees in decision-making. But this explanation did not convince the public. One self-media headline read: "Wal-Mart Insists New Pricing Patent Has Nothing to Do with Price Tags Coming to Every Store"; Men's Journal also published a report titled "Wal-Mart's Major Pricing Adjustment Sparks Strong Public Backlash."

In the digital age, media coverage of patent documents is increasing. Patent offices have opened online databases, allowing enthusiasts and activists to track various patent developments. A media outlet called Patentlyze specifically digs into the most eye-catching patent applications from tech companies. Even the fact-checking site Snopes has stepped in to debunk related claims, such as verifying "Microsoft holds Patent 666 and plans to implant microchips in humans" (the conclusion was false); and rumors like "Sony patented a technology that lets viewers skip ads by shouting the brand name at the TV."

News stories derived from patents are often unfavorable to companies. Ford once filed a patent application for a concept in which a vehicle could autonomously complete the repossession process when the owner defaults on car payments. After this came to light, Ford made many embarrassing headlines, and ultimately Ford voluntarily withdrew the patent application. Amazon also once applied for a patent for a "high-tech vibrating wristband," which media reported could allow managers to track warehouse employees and issue work instructions. At the time, Amazon responded publicly: "Outside interpretations of this patent are seriously misleading."

Wal-Mart's public statement this time may not be the final chapter of this matter. Lindsay Owens, CEO of the economic policy advocacy group Groundwork Collaborative, called on Wal-Mart not only to abandon the two patents that could enable dynamic pricing based on user demand and historical purchasing behavior, but also to remove the electronic shelf label devices. The takeaway for brand managers: if you have not yet been tracking patent application developments, you must add this to your checklist; once patent documents touch on controversial social hot topics, companies must be prepared in advance to respond to PR crises.