Regular readers of the IP Asset Maximizer Blog will recognize my previous post which provided an illustration of the predictive nature of patent landscaping to improve business decisions using Cox Enterprise's $300 Million acquisition of Adify as an example. I wanted to follow up on that post because a recent announcement by Yahoo may demonstrate that, at least in some situations, patent landscaping analytics are so good at predicting future competititve activity that they can operate as a business crystal ball. In that post, I predicted that Cox would likely experience substantial competition in the vertical advertising space as it seeks to capitalize on its purchase of Adify, and supported this assertion by providing a picture of third party commercial intentions by looking at patent filing data. This prediction was bolstered by recent a Google announcement that it was partnering with NBC-Universal to deliver targeted ads through cable. This
Think Business Cannot Predict the Future? Patent Landscape Analytics May Prove You Wrong
Using Patent Landscaping Analytics to Improve the Quality of M & A Decisions: A Review of Cox Enterprises’ $300 Million Purchase of Adify
Many companies today enter new product or technology markets through acquisition. However, this is far from a sure-fire plan for business success. For example, in 2006, Inc.com reported that 60-70 % of acquisitions fail and more than 90 % of acquired businesses lose value. These somewhat dismal results leave no doubt that acquiring companies need better sources of information to properly vet and select acquisition targets. Of course, companies typically conduct extensive pre-deal research to identify good acquisition targets and use the M & A due diligence process decide whether to consummate the deal. However, such efforts are inherently limited because much about the target will remain unknown until the acquisition is completed. There can nonetheless be no doubt that more sources of relevant information will improve the probability that the acquiring company will make a better decision about completing the deal. Since the degree of competition to
The Problem with Patent Due Diligence in Mergers and Acquisitions and How to Fix It
As a business or investment professional involved in mergers and acquisitions ("M & A"), are you conducting patent due diligence according to the standard practices of your M & A attorneys and investment bankers? When patents form a significant aspect of the value of the transaction, you are probably getting incorrect advice about how to conduct due diligence. The due diligence process must take into consideration the competitive patent landscape. If competitive patents are not included in your vetting process, you may be significantly overvaluing the target company. In my many years of intellectual property and patent experience (more info here: http://www.jackiehutter.com/), I have been involved in a number of M & A transactions where patents formed a significant portion of the underlying value of the deal. As the patent specialist on these transactions, I took direction from highly compensated M & A attorneys and investment bankers who were acknowledged
50% of Money Invested in Venture Capital is Lost: The Right Patent Analytics Can Improve These Odds
According to this article by Arlene Jacobius in Pension and Investments Online, 50% of all investment in venture capital is a loss. This article, which is based upon separate research projects by a Chicago Graduate School of Business professor and a former Chief Economist at the SEC, 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 to the 59% mean return of venture capital funds. This 59% value certainly does not reflect the investing public's general perception that venture capital return on investment markedly outweighs what one can obtain on the stock market. And, it is this apparently erroneous assumption of perceived higher return that presumably justifies the risks associated with venture capital investment by
Beware of Those Who Would Sell You Worthless Patent Landscapes
If you are an innovation professional or an investor in new technology, you certainly appreciate that it is important to investigate and analyze the so-called "patent landscape" prior to moving forward with your business plans. As shown by examples such as the $600 plus million settlement of the BlackBerry(tm) lawsuit in 2006 and the $431 million liability court finding that Boston Scientific infringed the patent of a New Jersey doctor, the execution of innovation and technology-based business strategies can be significantly derailed by the pre-existing patent rights of others. In view of these examples (as well as many others), you should not embark on any innovation or technology investment prior to developing a valid point of view on how patents will affect your investment payback. However, in talking to clients of my IP business strategy consulting company, I know that there is no uniform understanding of exactly what a
Using IP Strategy to Reduce the Strategic Uncertainty of Business Decisions
In my wanderings through the Internet, I recently came across a new-to-me management concept. This concept, which generally addresses the management of the risk of strategic decisions, directs C-level corporate decision-makers to embrace as a primary responsibility the management of uncertainty in order to enable the long-term success of their companies. The concept, developed by Michael Raynor of Deloitte Research, is briefly discussed in this article entitled "What is Corporate Strategy, Really" (available here: http://www.iveybusinessjournal.com/article.asp?intArticle_id=722) and in more detail in a book entitled The Strategy Paradox (more info here: http://www.amazon.com/Strategy-Paradox-committing-success-failure/dp/0385516223 ). In the article, Mr. Raynor effectively asserts that traditional models of corporate strategy are flawed because they are inherently based on a supposed understanding of future events. Instead of embracing the fallacy that they are able to predict the future, business leaders should acknowledge and accept that a significant aspect of corporate decision making is based upon planning
Patent Strategy Could Be Essential to Your Private Equity Business Plan
A friend of mine recently joined a small, privately-held consumer product company as its innovation manager. The company, which I will call "Cool Stuff," is owned by a private equity firm. The private equity firm purchased Cool Stuff about a year ago. Cool Stuff was essentially an established “mom and pop” company with a core product line. Cool Stuff has a couple of manufacturing facilities, but the primary value of the company is its relationships with existing customers (such as department and grocery stores) that will make it possible for new products to gain shelf space in department stores. The private equity company's payback model centers on growing the sales of Cool Stuff by introduction of several innovative and differentiated new products (hence, the reason for hiring my friend). After these products are shown to provide sustainable profits for Cool Stuff, the private equity firm plans to sell Cool Stuff and