Chinese companies engaged in active transactions involving a total of 237,773 patents in 2020.
According to information provided in The China Intellectual Property Financing Index Report, and reported in Mondaq via AFD China Intellectual Property, a Beijing law firm, Advanced New Technologies Co., Ltd tops the patent acquisition list with a purchase of 7,261 patents which were then transferred to:
The Ant Group (an affiliate company of the Alibaba Group) at the price of RMB 12.2 billion. Alibaba, China National Petroleum Corporation, Beijing Automotive Group Off-road Vehicle, Goertek Optical Technology, Guangdong Power Grid, Apple, NIO, Haier, Comba Telecom Systems, also made into the list.
The top ten market players each bought at least one thousand patents.
As reported in IPR Daily, China’s IP publication, translatable by Google search into English, the most active buyers were Alibaba and Apple. It reported 327,773 patents were transferred in China in 2020, and the top ten market entities with the most patent transactions throughout the year were “all enterprises.” (The difference between sold and transferred was not specified. The transacted patents were presumed to be Chinese-owned or originated.)
$259K Per Patent
“The first Innovative Advanced Technology Co., Ltd. is affiliated [with] Alibaba Group,” stated the Report. “Its 7261 patents were injected into Ant Group at a price of 12.2 billion yuan, and the average price of each patent reached an astonishing 1.68 million yuan,” about $259,000 USD.
IP CloseUp was unable to download from a bar code scan of The China Financing Intellectual Property Report. The page was “unavailable.”
Guangdong Province, the Report stated, a pioneering province in China’s intellectual property rights, “topped the nation’s strongest provinces in intellectual property financialization in 2020 with excellent data, followed by Jiangsu and Zhejiang ranking second and third.”
IPR Daily stated that the article about the transactions report by the law firm, “only represents the author’s point of view, not the position of IPRdaily.”
Image source: foreignpolicy.com; iprdaily.com