Lack of certainty and the high cost of monetizing patents are motivating some businesses to acquire impressive looking patents, not necessarily valid or essential ones.
A reputation for innovation or R&D prowess has become a far more valuable asset since the American Invents Act was passed a few years ago.
IBM, among others, has sold unproven patents for tens of millions of dollars to the likes of Alibaba, Twitter, Facebook and Google, attesting to the power of source brand when it comes to invention rights.
In all but a handful of instances, no one gives a hoot about what an IT patent is really worth in the marketplace or even whether it is valid. There is nothing new about securing batches of patents for affect, especially if it is unlikely that they will be enforced and subject to the scrutiny of litigation.
With licensing revenue down and patent sale prices 30% or more lower, there is little motivation for an alleged infringer to take a licence or settle a dispute. The search is on to identify alternative methods of profiting from IP. Drawing upon a portfolio or family’s implied value can have more meaning than its actual worth — which is becoming increasingly more difficult to establish.
As Good as Gold
In the current (November) IAM The Intangible Investor looks at “Perception is reality for some patent holders.”
A golden reputation for innovation is easier to establish than value for most individual rights. Thus, a patent portfolio or family in conjunction with a recognizable brand can constitute a formidable pairing. “Perceived patent value” holders, those with a
reputation for innovation, may be in a better position to profit today than business that actually hold valid and infringed patents. Proven patents need to survive the PTAB and perform in court, and require capital to monetize; a reputation for IP can be built over time and managed.
We may recall the Intel Inside® advertising campaign of a decade or more ago that touted the branded processor inside the PC. It not only encouraged product sales but provided the company with the ability to license at a premium the patents covering the component.
There was less a qualitative difference in the microprocessor (vs. say AMD’s) than an implied one based on Intel’s consciously cultivated, and largely deserved, reputation for innovation. If issued patents are even less reliable than in the past, then invention rights that appear to be good are the biggest winners. It is no coincidence that the most significant R&D spenders also happen to be among the world’s most valuable brands and significant patent holders. The top ones exceed or are just under $10 billion in annual R&D spend.
Reputation, whether it is deserved or not, makes buying decisions easier — a welcome relief to at least some cash-rich buyers in the market for coverage who cannot wait for patents to issue.
The full IAM piece, “Perception is reality for some patent holders,” can be found here.
Image source: askskipper.com; wparesearch.com
Thanks for a perceptive piece with interesting insights.
Unfortunately, your IAM article is not available to non-subscribers.
Emmett J. Murtha
President & CEO
Fairfield Resources LLC
Three Parklands Drive
Darien, CT 06820
Phone: 203 655 4951
Fax: 203 655 4931
Web Page: http://www.frlicense.com
Emmett, I believe that a trial subscription is available that would allow you access. Bruce