Posts Tagged: "patent value"

An organization’s overall IP strategy should support business strategies and help increase the value of the company. IP strategy will be different depending on the business and market. Value is not always about how much money can be generated by patents. Companies may want to motivate employees; attract customers, attract business partners or investors; protect existing products and the ability to improve them in the future; block or intimidate the competition; license to improve market penetration, generate income or gain access to third-party technology; improve their return on investment, or generate income or savings through joint-ventures, mergers and acquisitions, or investing in start-ups, among other strategic IP goals. Truly valuable patents are rare. Studies show that fewer than 5% of patents in a typical technology patent portfolio are valuable. Finding these rare valuable patents in a large patent portfolio is a challenging task.

Today’s pace of innovation and competitive intensity demand greater protection of new ideas and inventions. Yet intellectual property (IP) management is not a high business priority for many companies. Organizations that fail to recognize IP as a strategic asset put their competitive advantage and profit margins at risk. Companies can circumvent these potentially adverse impacts by maximizing the value of their creativity. Prioritizing and protecting IP assets helps organizations stay in front of competitors and drive greater growth.

The reason it matters as to whether we patent folks can speak non-patent speak is that those who make the decisions about patent value, i.e., corporate C-Level and above, do not speak or grasp patent speak, and instead rely on our guidance to make informed judgments about business and capital commitments. We sadly cannot communicate (think Raj on Big Bang, in the early episodes, around females) and, worse, even if we could, we are not even in the meetings where the decisions are being made. Look at any Org chart: We are often kept at more than arms length by General Counsel or who ever it is that patent counsel report to – solid or dotted line. In short, our fate, and the fate of our life’s work, is being decided by others, without benefit of our thoughts. Tragic, and a real business mistake.

Intuitively, family size and diversity of international filings should be good indicators of value. We hypothesized that like independent claim count, the investment to produce a larger patent family and file international patents would correspond to greater value. However, we found the impact was less significant than even the word count of claim 1 – only a 10% contribution to the overall weighting.

We found that forward citations (later patents that cite the subject patent) were the most significant factor in identifying patents that were likely to be purchased. In fact, the patents that were sold—or even highlighted by brokers, e.g. the representative patent—in a brokered patent package exhibited an even more extreme number of forward citations than litigated patents.

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.

Topping the list of US Unicorns (a pre-exit startup with a valuation exceeding $1 billion) are high flyers like Uber at $51 billion and Airbnb at $25.5 billion, followed by companies that are mostly concentrated in three industries: Consumer Internet, E-commerce and Software. Overall, we found out that 30% of US Unicorns have no US patent assets at all! About 62% of US Unicorns have only 10 or less (issued and pending) US patents in their name; these companies account for more than $157 billion in collective valuation and $25 billion in combined funding.

To a large extent the meaning of the term depends on your viewpoint, but for a patent owner patent quality is all about value. Indeed, from the patent owner’s perspective it is virtually impossible to divorce patent quality from patent value. This should hardly be surprising. A patent that is guaranteed to have only valid patent claims but which is extraordinarily narrow may be a quality patent in the eyes of some, but commercially useful it will not be. Thus, from the standpoint of a patent owner patent quality must necessarily be a function of value.

Typically in our experience only about 3% to 5% of a patent portfolio consists of “star patents.” These are the patents that are demonstrably valuable because they claim technology that is commercially useful today or in a very near future market. Finding this small percentage of good patents is the name of the game. That’s why until very recently the prevailing strategy for many companies was “the more the merrier” with a strategy that focused more on quantity. Companies filed as many applications as they could, fueled by the belief that they would ultimately hit pay dirt with a percentage of the resulting patents generating value.

The market price plummeted in the second half of 2011, and set off the downward spiral that stormed through the second half of 2013 when the market price reached the record low. There had been no discernible macroeconomic factors to justify the drastic decline in market price during the two years leading up to the end of 2013. As a result, the industry-specific factors might have been the culprit, among which the most prominent is the enacting of America Invents Act (AIA) in September 2011, as demonstrated by the econometric analysis above.

Techniques for valuing intellectual property continue to develop, especially as access to information becomes easier and more efficient. The practice of valuing intellectual property has only been around for the past few decades, during which time the practice itself has grown and refined. The decision of which approach to use is generally based on four factors: (i) how unique is the asset; (ii) how much data is available and verifiable; (iii) what is the context, purpose or objective of the analysis; and (iv) the judgment of the analyst which (one would hope) is based on extensive earlier experience. In addition to the traditional methods used to value intellectual property, several alternative methods are available. Some are modifications of the orthodox approaches with which most are familiar, but many other choices exist to value these complex assets.

The terms patent strength and patent quality get used frequently within the industry, but what do they really mean? To a large extent the meaning of the terms depends on your viewpoint. The United States Patent and Trademark Office has historically employed a variety of quality metrics, but is a patent that is considered high quality from the perspective of the USPTO a strong patent, or a patent that the industry would view as a high quality patent, or one that would be viewed to be a valuable patent?

Of course, if the debt provider is doing their job properly the valuation of the assets is to provide a safety net in the event of default. The fact that certain patents are currently under assault has to weigh into the valuation proposition, but the debt provider is not in the business of providing money to acquire patents. The debt provider would rather never have the assets revert to them. They want regular payments to service the debt. Thus, who you work with matters on at least one level. “The story matters a lot, and management is super important,” Zur explained. “One should look at the management because it is extremely important how the company itself, not the assets, are going to succeed.” If management is bad that increases the risk and debt providers have to act accordingly.

It has been several generations since Congress has enacted changes to the patent laws that gave greater rights to innovators, the Supreme Court today is reminiscent of Courts in the past that had never seen a patent that contained valid claims, and the Federal Circuit is infatuated with de novo review and willingness to rubber stamp invalidity decisions parroting the Supreme Court’s intellectually dishonest and logically inconsistent tests. In the wake of all of this uncertainty and outright vilification of inventors and the patent system, there are some in the licensing and monetization industry who are trying to bring meaningful financial innovations to the fore. For the foreseeable future, given the reality of a completely dysfunctional federal government and judges more interested in being legislators, we can hope that thought leaders with new patent monetization models can provide a solution that will keep innovators inventing and society benefitting from the fruits of their labors.