Tag Archives: Technology

China says it leads the U.S. in blockchain patents and investment

While China is no fan of bitcoin mining – it has moved to close mining operations – it is actively pursuing block chain patents, and is touting its leadership over the U.S.

China is the leading country for blockchain patents with Alibaba and PBOC on top, claims TechNode, a Chinese IP publication that partners with TechCrunch. Blockchain is a shared digital ledger that facilitates transactions, but whose practical application has yet to be determined. A wide range of U.S. financial institutions and technology companies are interested in blockchain, as well financial technology startups, many of whom have high valuations.

Out of the top 100 companies, reports TechNode citing Chinese data, 49 were Chinese, 23 from the US (see below for table of top 100 rankings). It is unclear if the leadership is in U.S. or China-issued patents, or both.

“An increasing number of companies in China are seeking ways to patent blockchain-related inventions, an effort that is in line with the Chinese government’s agenda to push forward with FinTech applications,” reports CoinDesk.

As reported by CoinDesk previously, major financial institutions, namely Bank of China, have already weighed in on issues such as blockchain scaling. (See “China’s Biggest Political Event Sees Blockchain Praise“)

China Blockchain Growth Exceeds the U.S.

IPRdaily, a Chinese language “integrated services organization focusing on new media for intellectual property and is committed to building the most influential IP cooperation platform in the world,” follows blockchain developments.

A report from IPRdaily – which is readily translated on Google Chrome browser – shows that blockchain financing growth in China far exceeds the United States, leading the world. The statistics show that as of December 17, 2017, the global total market capitalization of digital assets has reached 600 billion US dollars, compared with only 17.7 billion at the end of 2016. In less than a year, an increase of nearly 3300%.

Image source: iprdaily.com; technode.com

Pace of patent litigation declines; 2018 applications still flat

Early indications are that U.S. patent litigation for 2018 is on track to be among the lowest in since 2005.

So far in 2018, approximately 555 patent infringement suits have been filed (3,330 on an annualized basis). This is off from a peak of 5,874 in 2015, or an average of 979 every two months. In 2005, the lowest litigation filing year in recent memory, there were just 2,582 suits. In 2017, there were 4,072. January and February are early indications, and there is time for the rate to increase.

According to statistics provided by intellectual property research firm Patexia, January 2018 patent applications came in at 27,720, just 631 higher than 2017, 27,089, which was the lowest year for that month since 2012. February applications are running behind last year, which came in at 28,329 for the same month. Final figures are not yet in.

This trend in patent applications and litigation has been accompanied by a flattening of Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions filed. IPRs have been fairly level for the past three years, peaking in 2017 at 1,725. So far this year (through February) there have been approximately 250 IPRs filed, putting 2018 on track for about 1,500, slightly below the last two years on an annualized basis. No information on the number or percentage of instituted petitions was provided.

Litigation, IPRs and CBMs Filed to Date

IPRs and Litigation

Difficulty obtaining software and business methods patents are a likely reason for the drop in U.S. patent applications, as well as the increased difficulty defending patents. Patent uncertainty and decreased need for defendants to take a license or engage in licensing discussions, as well as the high cost of litigation, are possible reasons for an increase in IPRs.

For Patexia live litigation statistics, go here.

Image source: patexia.com

IP “literacy” matters – Ideas Matter promotes IP understanding for all

A basic literacy about IP rights is everyone’s responsibility. 

While at times complex, patents, copyrights, and trademarks can be widely understood if people are clear about their purpose and who they benefit.

Putting IP rights in perspective is serious business – especially given that knowledge-focused economies place an increasingly high premium on innovation, authorship, and brand.

Ideas Matter, a London-based consortium of IP holders and innovative businesses believes it is necessary to provide audiences more information about why IP rights are important and how it affects people. Recently, it teamed with the Center for IP Understanding at the IP Awareness Summitt in Chicago, to produce a video about the need for everyone to know more about IP rights.

“I think the economies of the world have realized that the market is controlled by innovation and invention,” said Judge Randall Rader (ret.), Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. “That requires research, that requires development of new ideas and resources, and, of course, those investments need protection.  That’s where the intellectual property system pays benefits.”

Ideas Matter released a video of interviews with IP experts and holders conducted at the IP Awareness Summit in Chicago. IPAS 2017 was held by the Center for IP Awareness (CIPU) in conjunction with Chicago-Kent College of Law, Illinois Institute of Technology.

For background about the video and Ideas Matter, go here. Twitter: @IP_IdeasMatter.

To view the five-minute video, go here or click on the image above.

Image source: ideasmatter.com

44% of top U.S. patentees for 2017 are U.S. companies; 50% are Asian

Many companies received more U.S. patents in 2017; IBM, the perennial leader, was number one for the 25th year. However, there were some notable declines in patent grants.

Canon, Qualcomm and Google were down 10%, 9% and 13% respectively. It is difficult to determine if it is as a result of poor company performance or a shift toward higher quality. Toshiba 20%, Philips 15% and Brother Industries 24%. The grant results were provided by IFI Claims. They also were reported in Law 360. Facebook at number 50 was up 49%, but on a much lower base; Toyota was up 36%, an indication that the automobile companies may be positioning themselves in autonomous vehicles and batteries for electric cars.

(Click on image for the entire list or go to IFI Claims at the link above.)

What does it mean?

Interpreting this data is not simple. Clearly, more is not necessarily better, and some patent recipients, like IBM, up 12% in 2017, frequently do not hold their grants to term. (Samsung, the largest U.S. patent holder, is a much larger active holder than IBM.)

But being able to afford patents and obtaining them with a purpose is typically a positive among information technology companies. Only 22 of the top 50 U.S. patent recipients are U.S. companies, down from a decade or more ago. Fifteen are Japanese, five Korean and four Chinese. (One is from Taiwan.) European businesses accounted for four companies on the 2017 list – the same as the number as China without Taiwan, and one fewer than Korea.

Image source: Law360.com; IFI Claims

IP CloseUp visits up 26% in 2017; page views up 31%; readers drawn from 134 nations and territories

IP CloseUp, the blog of IP perspective, research, and people, grew in 2017 to more than 56,000 views and 44,000 visits, up 26% and 31% respectively from 2016.

Now in its seventh year, IPCU was read in 134 nations and territories in 2017. The top ten readers were the U.S., Canada, India, UK, New Zealand, Australia, Germany, South Korea, Taiwan, and France.  They were followed by the Netherlands, Japan, and China.

The most active month in 2017 was January, with 20,357 views. IPCU averaged a post a week and generated 52 posts for the year. Posts typically include links that make further research and exploration easier.

Since its inception in 2011, there have been more than 120,000 visits to IP CloseUp and 176,000 page views.

The most read post this year was about Robert Kearns, inventor of the intermittent windshield wiper, who was forced to sue U.S. and other automobile companies in the 1980s for patent infringement. The Kearns post generated 17,548 visits in January. A subsequent Kearns post published in 2016 can be found here.

IP CloseUp coverage includes patents, as well as copyrights, trademarks and trade secrets. Subscriptions are free. IPCU can also be followed on Twitter @ipcloseup.

Image source: http://www.ipcloseup.com

Topsy turvy: InterDigital posts 66% drop in 3Q net; Acacia up $158.4M

Public IP company stalwart, InterDigital, with PIPCO-leading performance over the past five years, was hit by a significant drop in its net earnings in the 3Q. Its performance was in stark contrast to the oft-beleaguered Acacia, which posted a quarterly net profit of $158.4 million.

For Acacia Research Corporation (ACTG), the motivation was a one-time gain as a result of an unrealized return on its investment in Veritone Inc. (VERI), the artificial intelligence company that went public earlier this year.

InterDigital (IDCC) posted a 66% drop in 3Q net, as its income from patent royalties fell to $34.7M from $103.5M. “The decline in patent licensing was mainly because of a plunge in past patent royalties,” reported The Patent Investor.

Earning for PA-based IDCC actually came in better than expected. CEO Bill Merritt emphasized the company’s continued efforts to manage for the long-term, saying “the strong visibility over our revenues and future cash flows, given our high fixed-fee revenue contribution and long-term agreements, put us once again in a position to return value to shareholders with last month’s announcement of our third dividend increase in the past four years.”

Four Million Shares

Acacia’s $50 million in loans to Veritone converted in the AI firm’s May 2017 IPO into 4.12 million shares of Veritone. That included 1,969,186 shares and a warrant to acquire 2,150,335 shares that converted into stock with the IPO. Acacia also has 1,120,432 Veritone stock purchase warrants with a strike price of $13.26. The company said its cash and short-term investments totaled $158.6 million, as of September 30, 2017.

Acacia appears to have generated a better return from its well-placed loan than it has from its recent patent licensing initiatives. That may be its smartest patent monetization play yet. InterDigital is down approximately $15 per share YTD; Acacia about $.50.

For a performance comparison of InterDigital, Acacia and other PIPCOs, visit the IP CloseUp 30™, here.

Image source: truebluetribune.com 


Global focus+ at IP Dealmakers Forum; IPCU reader’s save $200

Attendees to this year’s IP Dealmakers Forum can expect an expanded international perspective to the timely content and networking. This year’s keynote is Dr Lulin Gao, Founding Commissioner of the Chinese State IP Office. 

IPDF, now in its fourth year, emphasizes quality of content and attendees. Last year IPDF hosted more than 200 one-on-one private meetings.

“We are honored to have Dr. Gao as our keynote speaker this year,” noted Wendy Chou, Co-Founder of IP Dealmakers Forum.”He provides a timely and rare opportunity to gain insight into how China’s IP system really operates — straight from the source.“

Dr. Gao will present current data from the courts, providing attendees with valuable access to information that is not readily available.

Often referred to as the founding father of the modern Chinese IP system, Dr. Gao was the first Commissioner of China’s State IP Office, the longest standing Commissioner of the Chinese Patent Office, and a senior advisor to the WIPO. He is the recipient of numerous honors and awards for his contributions in IP.

Last year, almost two-thirds of IP Dealmakers Forum attendees were investors and significant IP owners. I attend IPDF regularly. The Apella event space at the Alexandria Center, over the East River in NY, just south of United Nations headquarters, is a unique and conducive environment for an IP transaction summit of this nature.

Program & Discount

For the IP Dealmakers Forum 2017 program and panelists, go here.

IP CloseUp readers to here to receive a $200 discount off the registration fee.


Image source: 

Perception of patents & other IP rights is being taken more seriously

Do IP users – both businesses and individuals – view rights like patents and copyrights as potential assets that benefit commerce and society? Or, do they see them as nuisances to be ignored and, in some cases, disdained?

How IP rights are perceived, by whom, and why its starting to receive the critical attention it deserves.

Perception, which is known to affect value in all asset classes, is on the rise. Stakeholders are realizing that even sophisticated audiences are clueless about what IP rights generate, and for whom and that the growing hostility towards them has profound implications.

In the October IAM (out today), The Intangible Investor explores, “The premium on perception,” which highlights recent studies on IP perception. IAM readers can find a copy here.

Recent Studies

Several recent studies that look at how various audiences regard IP rights have set the stage for further research and analysis. They include:

European Citizens and Intellectual Property: Perception, Awareness and Behavior, a research report from the EUIPO, surveyed 26,000 EU citizens in 2013 and then again in a 2016 follow-up, published this year. Its findings show that while 97% of Europeans regard IP rights favorably, 41% of youths 15-24 believe that it is sometimes ok to buy counterfeits and many say they do, especially when cost is an issue.

Gregory N. Mandel, Dean of the Temple University Law School, questions the accuracy with which audiences see the IP system. In two seminal papers, he considers whether a system that is widely misunderstood can be effective. Professor Mandel and his team conducted research experiments with some 1,700 subjects. He has been researching IP and perception for over a decade with some startling results. The Public Perception of Intellectual Property was published in 2015, and What is IP for? Experiments in Lay and Expert Perceptions was this year.

The IP Strategy Report -2Q 2017 from Aistemos, and IP consultancy, edited by Professor Jeremy Phillips, provides additional useful data points regarding IP and perception. In a report published earlier this year that examined how patent disputes are covered by the technology, business and general media, the Center for Intellectual Property Understanding (CIPU) found that technology media are more subjective than other business or general press when it comes to reporting about patent infringement. The report, Patterns in Media Coverage of Patent Disputes, examined 127 articles published in 2016.

 Refusal to recognize the integrity of IP rights is growing. Whether or not this is simply a failure to communicate or a function of self-interest is unclear.

Perhaps the most compelling evidence about U.S. need for IP education was co-written by a Canadian researcher, Dan Breznitz.  What the US should be doing to protect Intellectual Property? appeared in the Harvard Business Review.

Failure to Communicate?

For some audiences, refusal to recognize the integrity of IP rights is growing. Whether or not this is simply a failure to communicate or a function of self-interest is unclear. What is clear is the need to quantify changes in attitude, what motivates them and their impact.

IP professionals have done an exceedingly poor job of explaining patents and other rights, to stakeholders, including their own boards of directors and investors. Perhaps they are fearful of setting the stage for future accountability, perhaps they think no one will care?

Recent attempts to track and understand attitudes toward IP are an important step in the right direction. More work needs to be done. An IP system which the participants do not understand or whose values they do not respect is no IP system at all.

Image source: euipo



U of Chicago-Booth Business School article is ‘junk’ IP science

An ill-founded attack on U.S. IP rights appearing yesterday in the University of Chicago, Booth School of Business publication, “Pro-Market,” is a sobering reminder that there those who believe that IP rights should be eliminated and are willing to resort to propaganda to make it happen. 

The article, “Intellectual Property Laws: Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing,” is a wakeup call to millions of Americans who believe in innovation, authorship and free-enterprise. It must be read to be believed.

Intellectual Property Laws: Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing by ink Lindsey and Steven M. Teles of the libertarian Niskanen Center, is a bold challenge to prove that IP has meaning in a digital world, and whether most rights can simply be ignored.

Authors Lindsey and Teles cite the much-debunked 2012 Bessen-Meurer research that claims $29 billion in costs to companies as a result of patent litigation.

“In other words,” state the authors, “outside the chemical and pharmaceutical industries, American public companies would apparently be better off if the patent system didn’t exist.”

The authors conclude: “The copyright and patent laws we have today therefore look more like intellectual monopoly than intellectual property. They do not simply give people their rightful due; on the contrary, they lavish special privileges on copyright and patent holders to the detriment of everyone else. Therefore, it is entirely appropriate to strip IP protection of its sheep’s clothing and to see it for the wolf it is, a major source of economic stagnation and a tool for unjust enrichment.”

The Niskanen Center, which Lindsey and Teles are associated, generated almost $2 million in 2015 revenues. The organization’s website does not indicate the sources nor does there their 990 annual statement.

Pro-Market is the blog of the Stigler Center at the University of Chicago Booth School of Business. The article is adapted from their upcoming book “The Captured Economy: How the Powerful Enrich Themselves, Slow Down Growth, and Increase Inequality” (Oxford University Press).

The article, “Intellectual Property Laws: Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing,” can be read here.

Image source: promarket.org

London IP Summit will feature transaction leaders; Washington patent policy event, a US Senator

Two timely IP conferences, one in London focusing on patent deals, and the other in Washington, looking at patent policy issues, will take place in this fall. 

This year’s London IP Summit will be held at the London Stock Exchange on October 16,and feature several of the leading figures in patent licensing and transactions.

So far, they include Stephen Pattison, ARM; Kasim Alfalahi, Avanci; Gustav Brismark, Ericsson; Roberto Dini, Sisvel; Tim Frain, Nokia; and Manny Schecter, IBM.

“The London IP Summit is an industry leading event dedicated to bringing together IP owners, experts and investors to address key challenges and operational issues faced by companies and IP professionals today,” reports LIPS.

“Due to the sensitive nature of the topics discussed, LPS-London IP Summit is the only IP event organised under the Chatham House Rule*, offering safe and secure environment to speakers and to attendees in order to encourage openness and sharing of information. Participation at the event is by invitation only

 * When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed.

For the full program or to register go here.


In Washington, DC on November 14, IAM is presenting the 3rd annual Patent Law and Policy conference, “Courts, Congress and the Monetization Landscape,” at the Reagan International Trade Center, across the street from the White House. The event will provide the political background needed to put IP into better context amidst changes.

Coverage includes the latest Supreme Court decisions and the machinations in Congress, to the policies of the Trump administration, the event provides delegates with timely and relevant insights from panelists representing a broad cross-section of the patent community.

Senator Chis Coons (D-Delaware) will be a speaker, as will interim USPTO Director Joseph Matal.  Laurie Self of Qualcomm, a passionate defender of the right to license patents, also will present.

For the Patent Law and Policy program or to register, go here.

Register by October 6 using code ONLINEEB to receive $100 off the standard rate. (CLE credit is available.)


Image source: 10times.com; qualitytalks.com

BofA, JPMChase & Morgan Stanley are top banks for patent loans

Bank of America, JP Morgan Chase and Morgan Stanley are the currently leaders in patent-based lending, according to a recent update of a 2015 study.

Relecura, Inc., a California patent research and analysis company, reports that Bank of American had 60,093 transactions for a total market share of 16.87%. JP Morgan Chase had 45,304 transactions for a 12.72% market share. Morgan Stanley, which was number 11 on the 2015 list, came in at third in 2017 with 24,244 loans and 6.80% of all transactions.

The total number of transactions between 2011 to 2016 were 947,907, consisting of 356,287 applications.

Long History

There is along history of IP-backed bank financing. Businesses of all sizes and types have used it to raise money using patents, copyrights and trademarks as collateral. Distressed businesses tend to use it the most, perhaps when other sources of capital dry up.

In 2015, the key companies securing loans using patents include General Motors, Avago (now Broadcom Limited), Alcatel Lucent and Kodak.

JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, Wilmington Trust, and Deutsche Bank were the top banks doing IP backed financing deals. GE Capital also was an active lender.

Several governments have been major IP lenders, including the China Development Bank, which in 2014 pledged the equivalent of $1.3 billion USD agains a portfolio of 134 patent and 34 trademarks. Korea and Singapore have also been active IP lenders.

Most Active Borrowers

Key sectors doing the borrowing include software and hardware companies. Other active sectors employing IP backed financing include digital data processing, digital communication, IT methods for management, telecommunication, semiconductors, and television & video transmission.

An excellent infographic summary of bank lending on patents can be found, here.

For the full May 2015 presentation, go here.

Image source: Relecura, Inc.

“NPEs generate higher damages awards,” 2017 litigation study finds

The disparity in patent damages awards between non-practicing and practicing entities favors NPEs and is growing wider. 

These findings, counter-intuitive to some, are part of the useful, just-published report from PwC, 2017 Patent Litigation Study – Change on the Horizon.

PwC’s analysis shows the continuation of a trend that began in the early 2000s: significantly higher damages awarded to NPEs relative to practicing entities.

The median damages award for NPEs was significantly higher than PEs in the last 15 years. While this disparity had narrowed to about 1.6x in the 2007–2011 period, in the most recent five-year period, the NPE median damages award climbed to 3.8x the median for practicing entities.

It is not clear if the findings are a result of NPEs owning better quality, more highly infringed patents than PEs, or that NPEs are simply more adept at enforcing them.

“The disparity has perplexed us for some time,” stated Chris Barry, one of the 2017 Litigation Study’s authors and a partner in PwC’s Forensics Practice. “Operating business that asserts patents typically are more interested injunctive relieve – halting a competitor’s product sales – than in generating revenue. Most patent cases are dismissed on summary judgment or settled.”

Higher Success Rate

Over a 20 year period from 1997 to 2016, PE’s have a higher success rate at trial than NPEs at trial, 36% vs. 25%, but a significantly lower recovery rate, $4.9 million vs. $11.5 million. For the 2012-2016 period, NPEs out generated PEs in damages by almost 4 to 1 (see above infograph). 

Among NPEs, universities fare best at trial with median damages awards of $16.3M, as opposed to $13M for NPEs and just $6.7M for individual inventors who enforce.

No information on trial costs was provided, although AIPLA tracks them by the size of the case. There also was no tracking of PTAB results or influence on patent litigation. Many law firms address this, as does Unified Patents.

Despite a handful of large, headline-grabbing patent damages awards – most of which are never paid – patent trials have been flat for almost three decades, with a little more than 100 disputes going to trial annually.

There are an estimated two million plus active U.S. patents.

For the full 2017 patent litigation report, go here.


Image source: PwC


%d bloggers like this: