Posts Tagged: "patent license"

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.

Alice certainly has dealt a huge blow to patent market, reversing the growth momentum of most market players, big or small. However, the decline in patent sales revenue has significantly decelerated to 5% in 2015, based on the estimated data. Not all segments of IP industry have weathered the Alice storm equally well. Most NPEs have seen their share prices plunging half to nearly 100%. There will be more restructuring and further consolidation in NPE business in 2016.

Open licenses are private arrangements that work within the current legal regime to encourage innovation, discourage trolls, and help attract top engineering talent. It is a win-win solution for different patenting companies and user’s society. There are several different types of most common open licenses. A License of Transfer Agreement (or shortly, a LOT agreement), that helps to prevent legal suits from non-practicing entities that purchase patents for the sole purpose of enforcing them (called Patent Assertion Entities, or PAEs). Under the LOT Agreement, every company that participates, grants a license to the other participants where the license becomes effective only when patents are transferred to non-participants.

So it now looks like this: if you are a patent owner and feel that your rights have been encroached upon, you now have to assume there will be a challenge to their validity by a potential licensee through an Inter Partes Review (IPR). If you are one of the lucky few (~25%) who survive such a challenge with at least one valid patent claim, you then have to expect an appeal. Assuming you win that appeal, then the real court battle starts in earnest and you’ll have to face what has now become a $3-5M ordeal in legal fees to get through a full trial on the merits and the routinely filed appeal should you beat all odds and win. Treble damages for willful infringement have been rarer than a dodo bird sighting and even winning does not mean you will collect your money any time soon, as the Apple-Samsung saga has recently shown.

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.”

“I don’t think investors care about names,” Croxall said. “I think they care about results. I have the troll conversation, but it is never with investors. Are they getting smarter about the risk of going to trial? I think they have… I think you get punished more for losing than rewarded for winning.” Croxall also acknowledged that the troll issue seems to have penetrated into the jury box. Hartstein would later agree that public IP companies get punished at least twice as much with a litigation loss as compared with a litigation victory.

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.”

One thing is certain in these tumultuous times, the business of patents has changed. The days of bulk buying at $10,000 per patent have ended; public IP companies are under legislative and shareholder pressure; and, IPR’s have significantly impacted the value of weak patents. These are just some of the examples of significant business changes. So what is a patent owner to do when they want to monetize their patents? There are only three options for patent owners: they can license their patents, they can sell their patents or they can do nothing.

Although the job of developing the patent portfolio never ends, once the assets begin to reach a critical mass it becomes equally important to tactically manage the portfolio. Because if not managed properly, a patent portfolio will not only fail to generate revenue, it will also drain the company coffers. With this in mind it is essential to know thy portfolio, prune thy portfolio and monetize thy portfolio. When many think of patent monetization, patent sales and licensing (in and out of court) are what come to mind, but there have been a slew of anti-patent court decisions that patent owners need to consider before monetizing. Crisis is often said to spawn opportunity and the patent world is no different. Uncertainty in the litigation arena has spawned new, non-litigation offerings to innovators desirous of leveraging the value of their patents.