(Editorial Note: I have gotten some great feedback from my recent post 9 Out of 10 Patents are Worthless: Here's Why and How to Keep it Happening from You (Part 1 of 4). I am working on the next installment, so be on the look out for more of my thoughts on this meaningful topic.) Readers of the IP Asset Maximizer Blog will probably enjoy this very smart post from Ian McClure of IP P®OSPE©TIVE entitled "A New Legal Landscape for IP: Ex Ante will Join Ex Post Services". (While the post says some very flattering things about me, this is not why I am recommending it: the IP P®OSPE©TIVE blog is consistently good, and Ian "gets" IP business issues.) In this post, Ian frames IP Strategy in terms of "ex post" and "ex ante"--that is, instead of dealing with IP issues after it exists (i.e., ex
A New Framework for IP Strategy Conversations: Ex Post vs. Ex Ante (from IP P®OSPE©TIVE)
9 Out of 10 Patents are Probably Worthless: Why and How to Prevent this from Happening to You (Part 1 of 4)
I decided to start 2010 with a controversial premise: what if 9 out of 1o patents--or 90 %-- issued in the US were worthless? Believe it or not, but this probably is not too far off the mark. By "worthless," I mean that it is likely that only 10% of patents in force today meet each (and every) of the below criteria:
1) The patent directly or indirectly protects a product or technology that is being sold in the market today;
2) The patent covers a product or technology where there is or likely will be viable competition in the marketplace such that a patent is needed to legally restrain competition; and
3) The patent owner is ready, willing and able to bring a patent infringement suit against an infringer or it is likely that your competitor believes that it will possibly do so.
Unless
Success in Innovation Requires IP Counseling on the Front End: Here’s How to Make it Happen
The 2009 Open Innovation Summit was held in Orlando two weeks ago. The event was attended by corporate practitioners of Open Innovation, including people from P&G, GSK Consumer, Cisco, Whirlpool, J&J, HP (here are Phil McKinney's slides), Clorox, and many others. Leading consultants in Open Innovation also attended, including Stefan Lindegaard of Leadership+ Innovation, Braden Kelley of Blogging Innovation and Robert Brands of Innovation Coach. A number of vendors of services were there, too. I thought this was a great knowledge share event, and a must do for folks wanting to learn more about Open Innovation. Another Summit is planned for August 201o in Chicago. At the Summit, we spent much of the 3 days hearing how the attending companies, many of which include those in the Fortune 100, view Open Innovation as a critical aspect of sustainable growth and profits. We also heard about
Beware of Bogus Patent Analytics: Forward-Citation Analysis Leads to False Conclusions about Significance of Client’s Patent
Patent application filing and issuance data can be a useful tool to extract valuable competitive business information that is "hiding in plain sight." For example, in industries where patents are viewed as pertinent for creating and protecting long term value, patent filing data can present a strong signal about where your competitors are investing their time and money in innovation that may result in their future product or technology offerings. In another example, such data analysis, also known as "patent analytics" or "patent landscaping," can provide useful information about potential new markets for your company's technology. In this regard, for example, a chemical manufacturer can review how others are utilizing their products by reviewing patent filings. For patent owners, analytics can reveal whether infringement may be occurring or whether it might have a higher value using forward citation analysis, which is a review of how many times a patent is cited in the later record of other patents. Various flavors of patent analytics are
The NY Times is Wrong: Patent Auctions Do Not Provide Indendent Inventors with “Protection”
- Patent auctions will do little to help independent inventors sell their patents
IP Quality Must be a Key Feature in Any Financial Product Based on IP Assets
Neil Wilkof of the great IP Finance blog brought up a couple of interesting issues in his latest blog post entitled Securitization of IP: Urban Legend, or Playing Soon in a Theatre Near You? Specifically, he wonders if the desire for innovative (and not discredited) financial products today will result in the emergence of IP securitization as a model for raising capital and, if so, if the there will be a place for IP professionals in the process of valuing such IP. I recommend Neil's post to anyone who is interested in how IP assets might be leveraged to create opportunities outside of the usual protection of the IP owner's products and technology. Moreover, I agree with Neil's view that if IP is going to be a recognized as a means to raise capital, improvements have to be made in the way finance and IP professionals interact. Put simply,
IP Strategies for High Growth Companies
As an IP Business Strategist, I frequently speak to CEOs of high growth/start-up companies. I have prepared this short deck to walk them through the basics of how IP Strategy can be implemented in their organizations, and where in their organizations their intangible assets might reside.
Reality Check for Inventors: Most Corporations Will Not Give Your Idea a First Look. Here’s Some Reasons Why.
Improve Your Chances of Obtaining a Patent at a Reasonable Cost and Time by Demonstrating the “Wow Factor” in the Application
A strong majority of people seeking patent protection to protect their products or technology leave the details the drafting process to their patent attorneys. That is, given the specialized (and, frankly, arcane) nature of the patenting process, even highly accomplished business professionals believe that a patent specialist (i.e., attorney or agent) is better equipped to understand how to best describe their invention to the US Patent Office (“USPTO”). This can be an ineffective way to handle the front end of the patenting process because it can result in the process being more contentious. Such contentiousness can result in narrower claims than desired and can make the patent take longer to issue and make the process considerably more expensive. In determining whether a client’s invention meets the legal requirements for patentability, a patent specialist thinks about how to legally distinguish the invention from those that have come before. Specifically, the patent specialist
Start-up Entrepreneurs & CEO’s: If Your Goal is Investment or Acquisition, You are Probably Patenting the Wrong Things
Do you treat your patents as a fence or a tollbooth? If you wish for your start-up technology company to obtain investment from or acquisition by a bigger player, you had better understand the difference. Most start-up technology company entrepreneurs and CEO's understand that patents can be key to establishing the value of a new business idea. Typically, entrepreneurs and CEO's such as yourself will engage patent attorneys to build an IP portfolio that protects the start-up's technology and products to the fullest extent possible. The motivation for this effort and expense is, of course, to to protect your start-up's idea from use by others. As management of a start-up you may be seeking to build an ongoing business around the patented technology, but often the goal of building a solid patent portfolio is to make your business an attractive target for investment or acquisition by a larger company. I believe that