Posts Tagged: "Licensing"

Industry self-regulation is the most efficient and least disruptive means for realizing the benefits of our patent system. It will bring greater certainty to IP-related transactions, and support collaboration to enhance the creation, development, and commercialization of new products and services. It will advance the Constitutional imperative of promoting the progress of the useful arts. By drawing upon the skills, insights, and resources of the diverse community of IP and business development experts, LES will ensure a fair and equitable system of standards that will benefit both society as a whole and the innovators who depend on that system.

The best patents are those that multiply an investment and actually generate money on their own… Standards essential patents are the holy grail of patents in today’s business landscape. Most startups are focused on getting a product to market quickly, getting validation, and starting a revenue stream. Once there, the startups begin to scale. If there is any chance that a startup’s technology – even a piece of it – could be incorporated into an industry standard, the patent needs to be investment-grade. In these situations, multiple patents would also be a good investment.

The debate on RAND terms and conditions is mostly about the reasonability of the royalty rate, less about non-discriminatory part. So, what is a “reasonable rate”? Companies that manufacture products based on a standard will demand lower rates or royalty-free licenses, claim harm from patent hold-ups and from royalty stacking. These companies will argue that it is unfair when companies that contribute technology to the standard benefit from the lock-in of the standard because it is now unavoidable to use the essential patents in their products. On the other hand, companies that participated in standards development, and own essential patents because of that investment, claim that lower royalty rates will remove the incentives for future investments in standard setting and will stifle innovation. In the confusion generated by these lobbying interest groups, it makes sense to go back to the one thing everyone seems to agree on: Standards are good.

Having an attorney draft a licensing agreement, or a licensing expert negotiate a licensing agreement, from start to finish is obviously the best way to proceed. But there will always be some who will choose to proceed on their own to negotiate a licensing and/or draft an agreement. This can certainly be dangerous, but sometimes there is no alternative given financial constraints. Whether you are going to represent yourself or work with an attorney or licensing professional, it is a worthwhile endeavor to engage in some strategic thinking, which absolutely must be the precursor to any memorialized deal.

Lenders and investors like Gerchen Keller and Fortress, among others, have provided capital to or are partnering with private and public NPEs. These business are well suited to assessing market conditions, especially value, and calculating risk for given rights in a specific industry. That they are still willing to fund activities and co-invest in this climate is a testament to the durability of good patents. Also, there is some expectation that we are at or near bottom, and that there are more opportunities now.

A patent litigator knows the ultimate truth about patents: their real value is only revealed in the gauntlet of litigation. In a bygone era, patents were reputed to have a statutory presumption of validity, the power to exclude by way of injunction, and the capacity to yield treble damages if an accused infringer were so wanton as to disregard a notice letter and fail to obtain an opinion of counsel. It was often unnecessary for a patent holder to flex its muscle by bringing suit to enforce its intellectual property rights. Instead, the arms-length Georgia-Pacific theoretical license negotiation might well have occurred even before the commencement of any infringement. Those days are over.

Patent licensing is becoming increasingly challenging and it requires thorough preparation on the licensor’s part to convince a potential licensee that a license is both required and inevitable and to persuade them into serious negotiations. The steps involved will vary based on whether your patents are already being infringed upon or if they protect a new technology that can extend market value or penetration. In this article, the focus is on the research and preparation for the licensing of patents that may already be in use.

“At the end of the day innovation is important,” Jung explained before he lamented the fact that the United States “seems to be making it harder and harder to be competitive globally…” Jung ended his presentation by pointing out that in 1820 the United States contributed only 1.8% of world GDP, but that thanks to an innovation economy the United States peaked at about 30% of world GDP, “predominantly driven by invention-driven industries like automotive, like aerospace, like pharmaceutical and so on. These were all based on key inventions that the US dominated the landscape on. That’s clearly not going to be the case going forward. It’s going to be much more distributed across many different countries, which is why I think, again, diversity is going to be the key.”

Abha Divine is the founder and managing director of Techquity Capital Management, which is an IP investment firm that partners with IP owners to help them deploy their assets into untapped markets to broaden their reach and increase liquidity.We discussed the changing IP investment landscape and deals used to focus nearly exclusively on the number of patents transacted. Of course, that changed in the wake of recent substantive patent law changes. The focus of deals, at least those that were being done over the past few years, was quality. But now we are starting to see the marketplace value quantity again, but not at the expense of quality.

EDWARD JUNG: ”At the other end of that value chain you now have some of the most valuable companies in the entire world in places like China. What stops them from taking all of the value they’ve been able to derive from their over one billion population base, which well capitalizes them, and coming in and competing in the US? The US has not seen so many threats to their industry come from outside the US as opposed to within the US so in that sense I think that’s a whole new set of interesting problems to think about. I’ve actually had encounters with Chinese companies asking if there was some kind of, you know, hidden trick in the way we appear to be opening our market for them to freely come in without any IP barriers. For example, in pairing software and IP and so on and so forth.”

Calling all inventors! Lifetime Brands, the largest non electrics housewares company in the United States, is hosting an Innovation Day on Monday, October 5, 2015, at their corporate headquarters in Garden City, NY. This event will give housewares inventors the opportunity to pitch their products for the purpose of landing a licensing deal with this industry leader.

Both Korea and China are major players on the global patent stage, and the leading companies of these countries file and obtain thousands of patents annually. But it seems increasingly clear that the governments of these countries are attempting to support their domestic companies via antitrust enforcement to lower the price of access to patented technologies of foreign competitors.

The U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in Kimble v. Marvel Entertainment, LLC (2015) rejuvenates a 50-year-old rule that limits collecting patent royalties after a patent expires. On June 22, 2015, the Court upheld its per se Brulotte rule that bars a patent licensor’s collection of royalties for the use of a claimed invention beyond the expiration date of the underlying patent. The Court directly addressed criticisms of this rule, which originated in its Brulotte v. Thys Co. (1964) decision, and foreclosed any speculation about the continued viability of Brulotte’s bright-line rule in current practice.

In the automotive industry, it seems as though companies cannot give their patents away fast enough. The firesale began in earnest last June when Tesla Motors CEO Elon Musk announced to the world that neither he nor his company would enforce their patent rights on innovations made using their lithium-ion battery technologies. This decision to open source about 200 U.S. patents was bested in January of this year when Japanese auto manufacturer Toyota released a portfolio of more than 5,500 patents in the area of hydrogen fuel cell vehicles through a cost-free licensing program. Most recently, Ford Motor Company (NYSE:F) has joined this collaborative jamboree, announcing that it would facilitate licensing of more than 650 patents and about 1,000 patent applications in the field of electric vehicles (EVs).

If you are going to file a patent application you must have drawings to include in the application, but patent drawings are not the only type of “drawings” that an inventor should be considering. Patent drawings are wonderful for a patent application, but they don’t always do the invention justice if you are trying to capture the attention of a prospective licensee, or if you are trying to convince a buyer to place orders or sell the invention in their store. Patent drawings and other types of invention drawings, such as 3D renderings and photo realistic virtual prototypes serve different purposes.