Posts Tagged: "Patent Portfolio Valuation"

The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a petition for Certiorari in Oil States Energy Services v. Greene’s Energy Group, which will result in the Court addressing the constitutionality of post grant proceedings… The impact of the resulting decision in this case may affect patent dispute outcomes not just moving forward, but possibly spanning 5 years into the past… At a (very) high level, there are three possible outcomes arising from the Supreme Court decision that is expected in 2018 that will impact the IPR process: no change, some change, major change.

Your CEO: “Why are we spending so much on patents?” Your CFO: “Do we have a financial model for this spend?” The path forward isn’t clear. Now what? Using a model that examined both patent risk and expected risk reduction allowed the client’s IP department to put a number on the value of their efforts. In turn, this enabled the executive team to grasp the return on investment (ROI) from the patent strategy. Our client now had a tool to use for making decisions on how to mitigate patent risk and where to spend money to build their patent portfolio. The implications extend further into setting metrics and plan objectives to ensure that the patent strategy is on track.

In many cases, the challenge of patent quality is reduced to questions of patent validity. However, in other cases, the quality of a patent depends on economic valuation, which is a market phenomenon. After all, if a patent lacks any value in market, why would infringers care about it at all? Only valuable patents that have market impact are directly attacked by incumbents. This observation leads to the revelation that all patent disputes are based, not on patent quality, but on patent valuation. In the main, most patents of high value are considered high quality inventions, with low quality inventions not having value in the market… The modern patent system originated in Venice. At first, it worked well. But eventually, a cartel of market incumbents exercised their market power, took over the system by modifying its rules and diminished the effectiveness of the patent system for their self-interest. The effects of these changes were disastrous as technological progress slowed and the economy floundered. We are seeing a repeat of this market phenomenon in the U.S.

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.

Even though traditionally valuation professionals have used a combination of cost-based and market-based valuation, more and more practitioners are using income-based valuation in combination with market data.  The income-based model focuses on what potential monetization or potential impact on business a patent portfolio might have, and as such, it is much more dynamic and reliable… For patent portfolios of potential future value, technology risk is preferred over market risk and one could use current market data to benchmark future value while building an income-based valuation model.

While patent portfolios are entering the market other patent portfolios continue to leave the market having been purchased. Asking prices seem to have also reached an equilibrium point, according to Kent Richardson of the ROL Group. There are buyers on the market looking for good portfolios, both tech companies who themselves have thin patent portfolios who are looking to back-fill their portfolios. Some non-practicing entities that had previously left the market have also started to come back as buyers over the last 12 to 18 months, at least kicking tires and strategically acquiring where the assets are strong and the price is right.

Whether you are managing an in-house patent portfolio, engaged in M&A deals involving IP assets, or a startup looking to secure funding, this webinar is for you. It is designed to help you optimize the value of your IP portfolio and will highlight patent market trends and the key factors impacting IP valuations.

Join me on Thursday, January 26, 2017, at 12pm ET for a free webinar discussion that will focus on decision making for dealmakers. This free webinar will approach this material first from the lens of the dealmaker who needs to know that they have all the relevant information necessary to confidently assess value and close a deal. We will ask, and answer, the question about which information can prove to be most useful and why. We will then pivot the discussion to bring in data experts to discuss how they work to find that information and deliver it as actionable intelligence so that good decisions are made with good data.

Most patent professionals recognize that a raw count of the number of forward citations to a patent can be an indicator of a patent’s value. However, a mere count is insufficient because decoding the citations to support meaningful decisions is still a challenge. To further complicate matters, important and meaningful citations are virtually always underreported making them unavailable to patent analysts for consideration. This article reveals new data that may render traditional citation analysis inadequate, and discusses the who, what, and when of each citation as an important consideration when attempting to derive value from careful examination of the complete forward citation record.

What is the best way to assess the potential value or use of a patent portfolio? Before we examine this, it’s important to clarify that a patent only has value in the context of its place in a portfolio and in how the portfolio is used to support the organization’s business strategy. Let’s look at two examples. A Patent Assertion Entity will evaluate patent value based solely on the potential revenue that will come from a licensing program. On the other hand, an operating company typically places a higher value on patents that provide protection. This can be the ability to defend leadership in a profitable market category or the ability to offer protection as a sole-sourced product’s revenue stream.

Join Gene Quinn and Ashley Keller on Wednesday, September 28, 2016 at 12pm ET for a discussion on the current state of patent value. We will take your questions, as well as discuss the following: (1) Patent eligibility at the Federal Circuit; reasons for hope. (2) The outlook for innovators and patent owners in Q4 2016 and Q1 2017. (3) Patent Reform: what is likely to happen and how could it impact value and monetization strategies.

Patent investors are no different than investors in any other asset class. They abhor uncertainty and charge a stiff premium for risk. In the wake of the AIA, the cloud of uncertainty hanging over patents is dark indeed. This uncertainty has depressed the value of patents and the returns to research and development, and may have broader ramifications that are yet to be seen… Like so much well-intended regulation, the AIA may have undermined the very system it was aimed at improving. While well capitalized players may be able to ride out the current storm—or even take advantage of it—many others have been irrevocably harmed by these changes.

Companies at the cutting edge of their industries have realized the immense value of their patent portfolios and are still trying to make the most of that value – but it is not easy. A semiconductor or electronics company can have tens of thousands of patents; finding the patents that are the most valuable is one of its biggest problems. These patents are needed to determine the strategy for patent sale, licensing or litigation, and without them the company is basically stuck and can’t move forward. The process is like sorting the grain from the chaff.

Over the past 18 months, our clients have begun to show greater interest in international patents (e.g. non-US). Increasing client interest in international patents corresponds with the general rise in importance of international patents (continuing ascension of the Chinese market, potential for unitary patent for Europe), more anti-patent owner decisions in the US, and greater patent litigation outside the US.…