Posts Tagged: "patent strategy"

Patenting the distinctive technological features that drive demand for your products and services will make your patent portfolio more valuable by creating a link, or nexus, between your patent portfolio and your products. You can use this nexus to exploit your patents by preventing your competitors from including the most valuable features of your products in their own products without your permission; commanding a higher royalty if you license your patents; increasing your chances of getting an injunction if you need to enforce your patents;
increasing your damages base if you enforce your patents; and defending against an obviousness attack on your patents’ validity by showing that the patented features increased your market share.

The required number of patents in a given playbook varies based on both the size of company of concern and our exposure to it. The general goal of a playbook is to shift the licensing amount purportedly owed by LinkedIn by $20 million to $200 million in our favor. In order to achieve this, we have found that a good playbook should contain between three and 10 patent families, with evidence of use for key patents. The goal of each playbook is to show infringement by the asserter’s products and services exceeding $1 billion revenue. We set specific goals for each one and tested its contents against them.

In this post, we’ll analyze LinkedIn’s patent acquisition process and the results of its targeted buying program. While the increase in LinkedIn’s filings helped to grow the total patent portfolio, challenges remain. First, while organic filings tend to focus on LinkedIn’s core technology and therefore help a great deal with counter-assertion against potential competitors, they are less helpful when it comes to large corporate asserters further outside LinkedIn’s core technology area. Second, the priority dates on all the new filings are recent (after 2011). Earlier priority dates (old inventions) help the most in counter-assertion, but LinkedIn would have had to file for those patents in the 2000s. Fortunately, the market for buying and selling patents is robust and allows companies to fill in where they have weakness in their portfolios. Focused patent buying allowed us to build a counter-assertion portfolio to help bolster any negotiations.

LinkedIn was a rapidly growing company with only 22 patents in its portfolio in 2012, putting itself at high risk for patent assertion. With a revenue reaching nearly $1 billion and a growth of 86%, LinkedIn knew it had to develop a patent strategy to reduce its risk profile. So what was LinkedIn’s patent strategy and how did it increase its patent filings? Let’s start at the beginning… The opportunities for risk mitigation can be divided into two categories: increasing organic filings to address future assertion risk and patent acquisition to address present and near future risk.

In 2012, LinkedIn found itself a potential target for corporate patent asserters. LinkedIn had revenue reaching nearly $1 billion, with growth of 86%, yet owned only 22 patents. However, this changed fundamentally from 2012 to mid-2016, when LinkedIn grew its organic portfolio from 36 to over 1,000 patent assets and purchased more than 900, dramatically reducing its risk profile.

Faced with ever-shrinking budgets and mounting pressure from the C-suite to demonstrate intellectual property (IP) value, many enterprises have jettisoned a once-prevailing global patent strategy: “File anywhere in the world where we or our competitors manufacture or sell products.” In view of the substantial costs of global patent protection, enterprises should pursue protection only when, and where, a value proposition can be rationally articulated. Thus, seven hallmarks of a rational global patent strategy are as follows…

Inventors know very well what they have invented and what they plan to do with their invention. But the typical inventor has a terrible sense of what their invention could be… All too often inventors and entrepreneurs spend too much time with their heads down, plow forward, and focusing only on the day to day operations associated with inventing. This is, after all, what inventors do and the inventor’s mindset. There is a problem to be solved and solved it must be! The problem this creates, however, is that is prevents inventors from looking at the bigger picture as they are inventing, which can lead to a catastrophe if the tunnel vision gets too severe… It is also critical for inventors and entrepreneurs to have a strategy to succeed, which seems simple enough, but is typically anything but simple for the creative types that are so good at inventing. The goal is not to create an invention that is cool, the goal is not to get a patent, the goal is almost universally to make money. The cool invention and patent are a means to the end, not the end in and of themselves.

While many, if not most, enterprises have instituted, and are executing, an IP strategy of some sort, an important question should be considered: Is the IP strategy optimal, such that its execution extracts maximum value from company technology? Some corporate IP strategies may seem sound in theory, but in practice they are (a) selectively or inconsistently applied within or across projects, (b) incompatible with how teams actually work, (c) relatively narrow in how they perceive innovation, and (d) distracting to innovators and IP practitioners while consuming enormous resources. Ultimately, the return on IP investment of such strategies may be questionable. However, enterprises that periodically take a step back to reflect on their current IP strategies, and recalibrate them if appropriate, are likely to derive the greatest possible value from IP.

RUSS KRAJEC: Getting a patent is not the end goal. Using an issued patent is not the end goal. It’s the beginning for the startup. Think about how you are going to use this asset in your business, and then craft that asset to match that business goal. When you do that, you make much better use of your time and energy. So many people who are looking for a paper trophy or a plaque on the wall, and they don’t understand what they’re going do when this asset shows up, and if that’s the case, why bother doing it?

CEOs, CFOs, CTOs and General Counsel are typically very good at making decisions when they have the relevant information, but how often do they have the relevant information when making decisions regarding patents and innovation? Even worse, when decisions are being made the Chief Patent Counsel is frequently not even in the room.

If you were buying patents in 2015, you likely did better than any previous year. The patent market, and, in particular, the brokered patent market, continues to be a robust market for buying and selling patents. Prices are down unless an EOU is available. Sales rates are up, and sales are tending to happen earlier. Caselaw impacted the market but not as much as you might have expected (Alice impacted fintech patents much more than software patents). With an estimated $233M in patent sales, we think the patent market will continue to provide interesting opportunities for both patent buyers and sellers.

Patent buying is an effective way to solve a patent deficiency challenge. In many technology areas (e.g. high-tech, solar, automotive), you can buy patents on the open market that can substantially improve your patent position. With over $7B worth of patents brought to market in the past five years, the opportunities to purchase patents far exceeds any one company’s needs. By adopting a few best practices, you can design and execute a successful patent buying program for your company.

In a survey by IQPC (International Quality and Productivity Center) 52% of corporate respondents cited failure to align business strategy with IP coverage as one of the key risks to their company’s IP assets. It’s especially shocking when you know that the “top patents,” patents that are valuable because they have a commercial value (or will in the near future) are limited to 15% of a company’s patent portfolio.

The very nature of preparing a patent strategy is something that requires both understanding of the patent laws and a healthy understanding of the business realities of evolving technologies. In order to plot a course calculated to succeed company leaders need to be cognizant of the actual business realities facing the company, not the talking points of lobbyists or those who write SEC filings or those who get paid to write press releases. Indeed, a comprehensive understanding of your own research and development, as well as where the industry is heading, is crucial when attempting to create the patent strategy that has any chance of succeeding.

The availability of information to gain insights based on what is happening to others who are similarly situated means decision makers can leverage the experiences of many when determining how best to proceed. For example, in the patent world if you file an application that gets classified in Class 705 that means you have little or no meaningful chance to obtain a commercially relevant patent. Truthfully, you have little or no chance to obtain any patent really. So what decision do you make moving forward? Are you going to continue to throw good money after bad money to wage a fight that you realistically have virtually no statistical chance to win?