As someone who assists corporations and entrepreneurs in monetizing their patents, I am continuously on the lookout for potential technology buyers. To this end, I subscribe to a number of services that provide "wish-lists" of technology that others are seeking to acquire. The most notable of these are Innocentive.com and Yet2.com. Recently, I have seen a number of technologies on each of these websites that are possibly relevant to patents that I have obtained for clients over the last several years. While this could be a coincidence, I also think it could be a signal that more companies are dipping their toes into the Open Innovation space, as opposed to relying solely on internally developed products or technologies. Patent attorneys seeking to improve the value they provide to clients would be well-served regularly reviewing the listings on these databases and spreading the word to their firm
Patent Attorneys Can Create Value-Added Services for Their Clients by Assisting with Open Innovation Efforts
Looking for Inside Info on the Automotive Bailout and Other Business Issues? It May Be Hiding in Plain Sight in US Patent Assignment Database
One of the under-utilized aspects of available US patent data is the business information effectively "hiding in plain sight" in the U.S. Patent Office Assignment database. While it used to take weeks or months for assignments to be recorded, in recent years, the USPTO has implemented a very efficient electronic filing functionality that results in assignments being available for review almost immediately after being presented for recording. (This is arguably the most efficient process today in the USPTO.) Because most patent owners appear to avail themselves of electronic filing option when recording their assignments, one can find a wealth of information in the USPTO Assignment Branch.
To this end, I recently uncovered an intriguing tidbit of information related to the Automobile Bailout when performing a wholly unrelated patent monetization marketability study for a client. In confirming that a patent was
Chief Circuit Judge Michel Agrees with Me: NPE’s (aka "Patent Trolls") are Not Necessarily "Illegitimate"
On his great 271 Blog, Peter Zura posted excerpts of the Chief Circuit Judge Michel's keynote address at the FTC hearings on "The Evolving IP Marketplace" last December where Judge Michel addressed the state of patent law and patent reform. Anyone interested in patents, the USPTO and patent reform should take a look. I posted a comment on this post, and am reposting it here (with additions) along with Judge Michel's comments about NPE's as presented on the 271 blog. Specifically, I was intrigued by Chief Circuit Judge Michel's view that NPE's ("non-practicing entities" also known by the pejorative term "patent trolls") should not be viewed as somehow "illegitimate." He apparently believes that by allowing those who are on the receiving end of NPE lawsuits to control the argument by "naming and framing" (my phrase) the problem as "trolls" is not helpful. Here is the excerpt of this part of
Want to Obtain Patents to Protect You from Competitors Knocking Off Your Innovative Products or Technology? It’s Easy-Don’t Be "Selfish"
Recently the CEO of a start-up asked me for the most important advice I could give before she filed a patent application directed toward protecting her company's core technology. In response, I said "don't be a selfish patent applicant." Few patent applicants obtain such counsel from their advisers and it shows: the vast majority of patents are written from a selfish perspective. (Note that I am using "selfish," in the context that the term is used in marketing i.e., thinking that others see the same things in your product or technology as you do. When one selfishly markets her product or technology, she assumes that others will buy it for the benefits she sees, not for the reasons upon which consumers will base their purchasing decisions. So when I say that most patents are written "selfishly," I mean that applicants (both individual and corporate inventors alike) approach the patenting process with
Why Does Your Company Fail to Treat IP Asset a Corporate Asset? A New Article Proposes Organizational Behavior as the Problem
While we can argue about the exact amount, without question, intangible assets form the majority of corporate value today. Matters involving IP are therefore predominately business issues, as opposed to legal issues or technical issues. For example, IP in the form of patents or trademarks (or both) frequently serves as a basis of the premium pricing that can be obtained from a differentiated product line. Also, IP directed toward a competitor's technology can legally limit the ability of a competitor to expand its offerings, thus decreasing its ability to compete. There are many other examples of the business value of IP, all which when strategically obtained and managed can greatly increase the overall financial position of the corporation using IP as a business tool. Notwithstanding the substantial dollars associated with corporate IP decisions, most organizations leave questions of IP in the hands of their legal and technical teams. Of course, many
A Response to PWC’s "Starry-Eyed" View of the Value of Litigation as Effective Way to Monetize Patents
I recently became aware of this patent litigation analysis prepared by PriceWaterhouseCoopers (“PWC”) (hat tip: Marcus Malek of the Intangitopia blog). The report appears to be rigorously prepared from data obtained from a large number of reported patent litigation cases dating from 1995. I read this report with interest and think that anyone who is interested in the ROI of patent enforcement should read it also. The data provide a wealth of information for anyone even thinking about bringing a patent case or who is involved in defending against claims of patent infringement.
Although the data in the PWC provides informational value, I nonetheless have a big problem with the following assertion that is prominently presented on page 18 under the title “What This Means for Your Business”:
"In light of the findings in this study, patent
50% of Venture Capital Investment is Lost: How Your Clients Can Improve These Odds by Using the Right Patent Analytics
THE SKINNY ON THE QUALITY OF VENTURE CAPITAL-RELATED INVESTMENT DECISIONS
If you are a counselor of venture capital firms or entrepreneurs who owning start-up companies that are targets of venture capitalists, you might already be familiar with the high rate of failure associated with such investments. Nonetheless, you may be surprised to find out that 50% of all money invested in venture capital is a loss. This figure, which is based upon separate research projects by a Chicago Graduate School of Business (“GSB”) professor and a former Chief Economist at the Securities and Exchange Commission, indicates that the actual return on venture capital investment is not much different from the average annualized returns on the smallest NASDAQ stocks. In particular, the return on venture capital investment from 1987 to 2001 in these smallest stocks was 62% as compared
Innovative Methods for Corporate Legal Managers to Reduce IP Counsel Costs
The Slideshare presentation that follows is an excerpt from a class that I am teaching to in-house legal managers about innovations in IP management. The topic of the presentation is innovative methods to reduce IP legal procurement and management costs. The goal of my presentation is not to get corporate IP types not to think outside the box but, rather, to think outside the truck the box came in. As such, many people may think these ideas are "way out," but if you start with small ideas, you end up with small improvements.
The "Dirty Little Secret of Patents" is that Most are Worthless to Their Owners. Here is Why.
Notwithstanding the vast corporate and entrepreneurial resources expended each year to file, prosecute, manage and maintain patents, a significant majority end up having little or no business value to their owners. Patents can end up being worthless for any number of reasons, most of which center on the fact that the claims do not cover a product or technology either currently or in the future being made, used or sold by either the owner or a third party. And, when a patent does not cover a current or future product or technology, one might argue its only residual value is as the attractive government document on the right.
No doubt exceptions exist to my bold assertion that most patents end up as worthless to their owners. That is why I used the
The IP Zone: A New Concept for Introducing Needed Information and Efficiencies into the Patent Monetization Market
Many corporations and entrepreneurs today understand that patents are increasingly bought, sold and traded, just like many other assets. However, the patent monetization market is only just emerging and, as a result, few information sources exist today to assist patent owners in selling their patents. The nascent nature of the industry also means that most patent owners do not themselves possess the necessary expertise to successfully monetize their patents. Put simply, today, patent monetization is "easier said than done." In view of the challenges currently faced by patent owners seeking to generate revenue by monetizing their patents, I was intrigued to learn about the "IP Zone" to be established later in 2009 in the Harlem area of New York City. The IP Zone will be physically located at 125st Street and Lenox Avenue in the Upper Manhattan Empowerment Zone, which was established in the mid-1990's to provide enhanced job