Tag Archives: The Intangible Investor

“Know-go” – negative know-how that can be protected as a trade secret is among IP’s most overlooked assets

December 13, 2018 by Bruce Berman 0 Comments

Thomas Edison famously said: “I have not failed. I have just found ten thousand ways that won’t work.”

After hundreds of experiments with different materials for a long-lasting light bulb filament, Edison, as much as businessman as an innovator, zeroed in on carbonized thread.

“At that point,” says James Pooley, author of SECRETS: Managing Information Assets in the Age of Cyberespionage, “Edison had two trade secrets: first, the identity of the best material. And, second, the identity of the materials he had tried.”

Negative Know-How

A business’ lack of success, a matter of specialized know-how more aptly called “know-go,” is protected under trade secret law because it is valuable not only to it but to a competitor who wishes to catch-up without spending as much time and money.

Know-how, sometimes known as show-how, is the “secret sauce” that can give an otherwise mundane invention meaning. But the value of negative experience — of what not to do; of repeated failures and near successes — should not be under estimated.

The Intangible Investor in the December IAM magazine looks at “Failure – IP’s most underrated asset.” The full piece can be found here.

Costly Mistakes

A popular television series, “What Not to Wear,” has run for 345 episodes over ten years. The show advises women and men about how to spare themselves the cost, time and embarrassment of fashion faux pas. The value, the show’s loyal followers reason, is not only in identifying the right clothes choices, but in avoiding the more costly mistakes.

Information, data or experience that spares businesses time, cost and potential embarrassment is an asset, often an invaluable one, especially to large, risk-adverse businesses where R&D is at a premium.

Know-go is also attractive to potential acquirers who need to know how far towards a solution a target may have progressed.

Closely related to the concept of negative information is the idea that you can be guilty of trade secret theft (“indirect misappropriation”) even though your product looks very different, or significant investments have been made in your own research.

“Intangible assets of this nature that serve to avoid failure,” says Pooley, former Deputy Director of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), “can be more valuable than knowledge that enables success.”

Image source: rundlesafety.co.za; wikipedia.org;

Litigation, News, People, Research, Transactions, Uncategorized
, , , , , , , , , , ,

Can the U.S. compete with China without a focused innovation policy?

May 29, 2018 by Bruce Berman 0 Comments

More nations today have an innovation policy than do not – that is except for the U.S. 

The U.S. not only has no centralized innovation and intellectual property policy, it has no real strategy for making IP rights more meaningful and American businesses more competitive in the wake of initiatives from China.

Some believe it is not the job of policymakers to tinker with free-markets or favor certain industries. Well, that may have worked in the past, but with China committed to dominating global innovation – and with unlimited capital – the U.S. must reexamine its strategies.

What it is not supposed to do is assume that it is business as usual.

The United States has a tendency to repeat past mistakes, such as in the case of so-called “Japan, Inc.,” which devastated the auto and electronics industries with more advanced products. It is currently contending with China, which has approximately ten times the population of Japan and has quadrupled its investment in technology over the past decade.

“US innovation policy: Time for a makeover,” a fresh take on dealing with competition in the Intangible Investor, can be found in the July IAM magazine, out this week, here.

Innovation policy in the United States is mostly a series of suggested strategies and directives from several government agencies and industry organisations primarily designed to address foreign IP infringement (i.e., theft). It is often tied to science and economic policy, and is typically reactive – not proactive.

“Better innovation policy not only permits established industries to compete,” says the Intangible Investor, “it facilitates success for the next generation of inventors, authors, designers and software developers. It also helps to supply context for a confused and wary public susceptible to false media narratives – intellectual property is not the enemy, nor are rights holders and lawyers.”

Enforcement is Not Policy

Trump’s anger about China IP violations, justified or not, does not constitute an innovation policy. Innovation policy is not just about enforcement or supporting the science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) curriculum for the next generation of inventors. It is about understanding the current economic and political context and responding as a nation.

“The FAANGs, and others, who dominate the competition and monetize their customers’ information, often without permission, realize they are increasingly symbols of bad business behavior,” Bruce Berman wrote recently in IP Watchdog. “The heat they feel from regulators in Europe and the U.S. will continue to rise.

“IP infringement will come to be seen as an increasingly important part of their bad behavior. The timing is perfect for them to step back and step up and show the leadership they heretofore have ignored regarding IP rights. Movement toward a responsible IP middle ground – a less entrenched position that recognizes others’ rights and actively conveys a greater willingness to share successes, not only defend them, will help to inform a meaningful IP policy.”

Quick-Reading Guide

For further background on U.S. innovation policy, read a timely and insightful perspective on U.S. innovation policy from James Goh, a young Wharton student from Singapore, “Primer: Innovation Policy in the United States.” 

For a linked quick-reading list about innovation and IP policy from the Center for IP Understanding, go to page 4.

Image source: q3research.com; breakinggap.com

 

 

Litigation, News, Places, Research, Transactions, Uncategorized
, , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Tax Cuts and Jobs Act: Some IP holders may benefit, most won’t

April 3, 2018 by Bruce Berman 0 Comments

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 places some IP rights holders squarely in the sights of the tax collector, while providing others with an opportunity to license overseas without having to resort to international asset transfers to maximize returns.

Patent, trademark and copyright owners of all sizes would be wise to revisit the nature and tax implications of their transactions, including direct patent sales, as well as where their IP assets are best located. This is a direct result of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA), the impact of which on IP holders is starting to be understood.

The new law is partly a response to businesses that hold massive amounts of revenue-producing assets outside the United States in so-called ‘patent boxes’ – devices which allow revenue on assets held within them to escape most local and all domestic taxes derived from IP-related revenue.

Like Wildfire

“Patent boxes have spread like wildfire,” Edward Kleinbard, former chief of staff of the US Congress’s Joint Committee on Taxation, now a law professor at the University of Southern California told the Intangible Investor. “Their success was doomed from the start. The international environment for intangibles and tax has evolved. With more products to license from sources worldwide and more revenue derived from them, these devices, which originally were restricted to a handful of nations, have become diffuse.”

The most famous (or infamous) product of the IP asset tax avoidance schemes, known as the “double Irish,” has been used by large corporations, including Facebook Inc, Google parent Alphabet, Inc and drug maker Allergan PLC.

The TCJA aims to lure IP locations back to the US, but whether the benefits are sufficiently attractive is still unclear. The Wall Street Journal coverage of the TCJA can be found here. For the American Enterprise Institute take on the Act, go here.

Rana Foroohar, a journalist who reports for the Financial Times, says in a video that a growing “tech-lash” (backlash) against the imbalance of power generated by U.S. tech giants extends to how they use proceeds from overseas licensing revenues to buy foreign bonds. Curtailing this activity has the potential to cause disruption in the bond market and interest rates, she says. Foroohar’s video clip on the potential ramifications of tax increases can be found here.

Self-Licensing

Rather than licensing to themselves (or the entities they control) to generate income that avoids taxes and use those proceeds to invest in corporate bonds, techcos might consider generating genuine IP revenues, as well as taking, and paying for, licenses they need from other holders.

For the full Intangible Investor story, “Identifying the impact of the US tax act,” in the May IAM magazine out this week, go here.

Image source: brodyberman.com

Litigation, News, Places, Research, Transactions, Uncategorized
, , , , , , , , , , , ,

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

October 2, 2017 by Bruce Berman 0 Comments

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

 

 

Litigation, News, People, Research, Transactions, Uncategorized
, , , , , , , , , ,

Attorney-investor is willing to share patent filing costs & risks with clients

November 28, 2016 by Bruce Berman 0 Comments

Many law firms still seek to participate in the outcome of clients’ patent litigation, but few are willing to share the cost of obtaining and maintaining invention rights, which frequently turn out to be worthless. 

A new book by an innovative Colorado attorney and inventor suggests that patent lawyers need to have more skin in the prosecution game, and that filing patents just to have them is a waste of their client’s time and money.

Russ Krajec, author of Investing in Patents: Everything Startup Investors Need to Know About Patents, says that the high cost of obtaining, maintaining and defending patents is prohibitive for most young companies. But without patents they can undermine their future, the value of their enterprise, and the fate of their investors.

_______________________

Recent studies indicate that 30 percent of U.S. “unicorns” (start-ups with greater than $1B in valuation) have no patents and 62 percent have fewer than 10 patents.
(David Kappos, et al. the New York Law Journal)

________________________

In the January issue of IAM magazine, available this week, you will find my Intangible Investor review of Krajec’s deft book and industry-challenging strategy, “A strong case for a new approach to patent investing,” accessible to IAM subscribers, here.

Investing in Patents, deceptively spare at just 139-pages, is relevant to all patent filers, lawyers and investors, in addition to young companies, many of which are choosing to forgo patent protection. (See excerpt from The New York Law Journal article above.)

Patents are more expensive than ever, just over $56,000 for the average one over the course of its life. Defending them has reached new highs of cost and risk. A case through IPR(s) to trial can cost several million dollars and require more than five years, with a reduced likelihood of success.

Average Cost of a Patent Over its Life – $56,000

patent-cost-pie-chart-v1-1

Engineer, Inventor, Financier

Investing in Patents is available at Krajec.com or on Amazon.com, here. In addition to being a patent attorney who has worked for H-P and other companies as a practicing engineer, Krajec has more than 40 patents to his name and, earlier in his career, was a USPTO patent examiner. He also runs BlueIron, LLC, an IP finance and management company.

While the sugg51l5ndgkvlestion of joint or fractional patent ownership is compelling, it is not entirely new or simple. As in most agreements, the devil is in the details.

It is unclear how Krajec believes ownership of a patent should be divided and who has the right to license, enforce, sell or otherwise leverage it – and when. Perhaps, most importantly, who gets to define success?

Given the current high-risk/low return scenario for obtaining and licensing patents most high-tech patents, this lawyer’s ownership alternative may be just what is needed to realign interests and enhance performance.

Image source: aipla.org; krajec.com

Books, Litigation, News, People, Transactions, Uncategorized
, , , , , , ,

Tech cos use patents to turn up the volume on smarter hearing devices

October 3, 2016 by Bruce Berman 0 Comments

Aging baby boomers, exposed to a lifetime of loud music, are more demanding than past generations about the quality of what and how they hear.

Don’t expect them to sit by idly watching Mick Jagger mouth the words to Satisfaction.

A group of leading technology companies familiar with consumer lifestyle preferences are helping to reshape the emerging hearables industry. A cross between a tiny wearable and smart prosthetic, it would be unfair to call these devices hearing aids. They are tiny, but powerful, information processors which, 13892-32c56cdb6fd37fccfbd10d1ffb425f54if properly programmed to individual users’ needs, can do far more than merely amplify speech.

Some will be able to offer simultaneous foreign language translations and are fully customizable with a phone app.

360 Million Hearing-Impaired 

Companies vying for leadership in the field include Samsung, Apple, Qualcomm and Google, as well as those already in the business – the so-called ‘big six’, each with decades of practical experience.

For the whole story see “Turning up the volume on hearables,” in the Intangible Investor in IAM magazine’s November issue. Subscribers can find my fully linked report here.

A Google search for hearing-aid–related patents by Apple, Samsung, and Qualcomm showed zero patents 20 years ago but 816 in 2015— slightly more than half of the total patent activities by the Big Six in the same period.

For the “Complete Guide to Hearing Technology in 2016” go here.  For “New Patent Applications: The Sound of Hearables to Come,” go here.

Sound Play

Apple has teamed up with Starkey Hearing Technologies to provide support for the company’s advanced Halo 2 smart device; Daymond John – founder and CEO of fashion brand FUBU, star of reality TV series screen-shot-2016-02-12-at-9-29-50-pm-e1455334928779“Shark Tank.”  He told CNN that the technology has changed his life (see video here.)

Google is working on commercializing a high-end in-ear computer, according to press reports based on patent filings. The technology is reportedly part of its secretive new wearable tech initiative, known as Project Aura.

If hearables reach their market potential, vision, memory and other human-assist devices will not be far behind. Forgot what you stated for entertainment on last year’s tax returns? An assistant far smarter than today’s Alexa, Siri or Cortana (Microsoft), and swifter than Google, will be able to find what you need.

Yesterday’s iPod is looking like today’s iHear and tomorrow’s iKnow.

Image source: wearable.com; anewdomain.net

Litigation, News, Research, Transactions, Uncategorized
, , , , , , , , , , ,

Patents are rights, not privileges; Jefferson story is “historical myth”

July 21, 2016 by Bruce Berman 1 Comment

Is it any wonder why patents are widely despised and holders mistrusted?

Patents and other IP rights have been caught in the perfect storm of anger towards the government, the entitled, and ideas too complex to fathom on Instagram.

Patents are difficult to explain and uncertain in nature. To many people they represent inscrutable and insurmountable barriers to entry that are erected with government sanction and controlled by an elite class of corporations, lawyers and speculators acting on their own behalf.jefferson-300x300

Ten-Second Lesson

Many people are introduced to the world of IP by nasty anti-piracy notices: two ten-second screens on the head of DVD and Blu-Ray discs that the viewer is forced to sit through.

That may or may not be an effective piracy deterrent, but it is a hell of a way to introduce viewers, especially young people, to copyright protection. It would not make a believer out of me. Surely, the government and motion picture industry can do better.

Such warnings are accompanied by an advisory that “For more information about how digital theft harms the economy, please visit, www.iprcenter.gov.”

I doubt that anyone (other than IP CloseUp) is dumb enough to actually visit the IPR Center. Did you know that it is home of National Intellectual Property Coordination Center, which is run by  the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Homeland Security Investigations (HSI)? I did not know that.

Its website explains that the IPR Center “stands at the forefront of the United States Government’s response to global intellectual property (IP) theft and enforcement of its international trade laws.”

Heavy Baggage

In “The perils of privilege” in the September issue of IAM Magazine (out next week) I weigh some of the heavy baggage that accompanies IP ownership, especially patents, which to this day still are confused with royal grants of authority bestowed by English monarchs.

“In reviewing primary historical sources in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, it is apparent that the Jeffersonian story of patent law [as privilege] is a historical myth,” writes George Mason Law Professor Adam Mossoff in a provocative 2007 article in the Cornell Law Review, “Who Cares What Thomas Jefferson Thought About Patents?”

banner1“Judge Rich once criticized labeling patents as monopolies due to the negative ‘emotional’ baggage that the term ‘monopoly’ carries with it. He recognized that ‘talk of the patent monopoly weds patents to prejudice, which is not conducive to clear thinking.’”

Modern patents are not privileges, but natural rights and may present an opportunity for the holder, in rare circumstances, to profit for a limited period of exclusivity in exchange for disclosing information about an invention. Patents are about sharing ideas to inspire more and better ones, and facilitating new and occasionally important improvements. They are natural rights, not monopolistic grants of privilege.

Blurred Lines

In a digital world, the line between ownership and fair-use continues to blur. Walking off with other people’s IP is as reflexive as going to the tap for a drink of water. To be fair, it is not always clear who owns what.

Violating the IP rights of others is more widely regarded as acceptable than perhaps at any time in American history. It is difficult to know who or what is responsible. One thing is for sure, educators and lawmakers are ill-equipped to answer the most fundamental questions about patents: why do they exist and whom do they benefit?

 

Image source: upfromslavery.com; iprcenter.gov

 

Litigation, People, Research, Transactions, Uncategorized
, , , , , , , ,

Engaging IP book for students is free via iBooks or PDF, $.99 Kindle

June 22, 2016 by Bruce Berman 0 Comments

The US intellectual property system has been the envy of nations everywhere. Despite this, confusion reigns about what are patents and other IP rights, and whom do they serve.

A new book has been published that makes it easier for college students and non-IP professionals, including inventors, engineers and investors to understand how IP rights work in the real world and how they affect peoples’ lives.

In an increasingly digital, knowledge-driven economy, an understanding of IP rights needs to be part of a core curriculum. The Intangible Advantage: Understanding Intellectual Property in the New Economy serves that mission admirably.

Compiled by an all-star team of writers, jurists, lawyers and professors, The Intangible Advantage (TIA) explains in clear, non-technical prose how the IP system works and the many audiences (aka stakeholders) it benefits. TIA is a revealing journey through the history and practice of IP in the United States. It is the first comprehensive text book for students that explains the IP system’s strengths and weaknesses, and dispels many of the myths surrounding them.

Clear and Concise

Chief writer, David Kline, is co-author of Rembrandts in the Attic (HBS Press), the first serious book about patents for business managers and investors. Kline is a former Pulitzer-nominated war correspondent, who has contributed to many business and news publications.

Serving as the book’s executive editor was David Kappos, Under Secretary of Commerce and Director of the United States Patent and lockup-ipad-verticalTrademark Office, 2009 to 2013. Prior to that Mr. Kappos was chief IP counsel at IBM. Also integral to the project was Hon. Paul R. Michel, Chief Judge for the Court of Appeals of the Federal Circuit (CAFC) who sat for 22 years on the bench, from 1988 to 2010. CAFC is the the highest patent court.

Giving Back

The Intangible Advantage is published by the Michelson 20MM Foundation. Established by Dr. Gary K. Michelson, an inventor, a spinal surgeon who responsible for 340 issued US patents and 953 worldwide. Dr. Michelson sold his company for $1.35 billion to Medtronic in 2010 as a settlement in a patent dispute.

The Michelson 20MM Foundation supports and invests in leading edge entrepreneurs, technologies, models, and initiatives with the potential to improve post-secondary access, affordability, and efficacy.  Dr. Michelson also founded the Gary Michelson Medical Research Foundation, which since 1995 has supported forward thinking initiatives in medical science by leveraging the collaboration of engineers, scientists, and physicians to solve real world problems; rapidly moving medical advancements into our society.

Separating Truth from Myth

The Intangible Advantage is written with clarity and charm, a Kline’s trademark that can be found in the books and articles about IP that he has written under his own by-line and those he has co-authored. IP professionals as well as students will gain from the historical insights the book provides, such as that despite media and hoopla about “trolls,” patent trials have remained virtually flat at around 100 for 30 years.

Given the explosive increase in patent filing and grants — About 325,000 US patents were issued each in 2014 and 2015 alone, and there are literally millions in force — the number of disputes that go to trial is extraordinarily low — not what the media would have us believe.

static1.squarespaceWhat The Intangible Advantage does exceedingly well is explain the US patent system and how rights can be used productively. It reminds readers that the system exists to facilitate sharing information about new inventions and stimulate new business, not to keep inventions secret or deter commerce. US IP rights differ markedly from others, especially the 18th and 19th century English system, which was more closely associated with privilege and class. The book underscores that the US system strives to use IP, especially patents, to level power, not to wield it.

TIA is un-intimidating at just 287 pages (1320 KB), a good length for those who want to know more without getting into legal minutiae. The book is available at iBooks for free and on Kindle for just $.99. An inexpensive print-on-demand edition (under $10) is also available. I downloaded a copy to my Kindle in about 15 seconds and read it over several days.

Start Learning Now

For the free iBooks version, go here or to your iBooks app store.

For the 99 cent Kindle version, go here or to the Kindle store.

For the $6.68 print on demand version, go here.

For the free standard Widows PDF version, go here.

The main Michelson 20MM Foundation resource page provides additional information.

In addition to Kline, editorial credits include:

Randall E. Kahnke (Author), Robert G. Krupka (Author), Kerry L. Bundy (Author), David Kappos (Editor),Paul R. Michel (Editor), Phillip J. Kim (Editor), Mayra Lombera(Editor), Marisa S. Moosekian (Editor), Gary K. Michelson (Preface).

The book is accompanied by a series of 3-minute animated videos available on YouTube answering such common questions as “Can I Patent That?”, “Is it Fair Use or Infringement?” and “What If Someone Infringes Your Trademark?

Education – the Future of IP

IP literacy is no longer an option, it is a requirement. A rudimentary understanding IP rights and the patent system is essential for individuals to excel in a knowledge-based economy.

Until recently intellectual property has been taught primarily in law schools or the occasional business school seminar. The history and use of US IP rights is an amazing success story, whose impact needs to be conveyed accurately to wider audiences, and repeatedly over time.

The Intangible Advantage – not to be confused with my 2015 book, The Intangible Investor – is the first IP text book for non-IP professionals, especially college students, that makes it easy to learn about an integral part of American history and commerce.

Image source: 20mm.org; michelsonip.com

Books, Litigation, News, People, Research, Uncategorized
, , , , , , , , , , ,

Contrarian patent investors see opportunity where others see risk

May 31, 2016 by Bruce Berman 0 Comments

The emergence of contrarian patent investors – bargain hunters hoping to cash in on decidedly soft market for  licensing and sales – are an indication that the bottom of the bear market for patents may be at hand.

A number of operating companies and some NPEs have been quietly acquiring patent families and portfolios at bargain rates. They include financial institutions, such as banks, traditional tech players, a few NPEs, and “unicorns” looking to shore up their valuation with intangible assets.

Betting aodd-one-outgainst the prevailing sentiment by seeking to identify under-priced assets does not come easily for professional investors or businesses. A strong stomach and sufficient cash is essential.

Contrarians who invest in traditional asset classes like stocks, bonds and money market instruments, can be rewarded for their good timing and persistence. Those who delve into commodities and real estate, too.

But while patents are assets to some businesses – “intangible” investors at heart – they are not a traditional asset class. Uncertainty surrounds patent validity in many classes, and patent value is often context-driven. Additionally, patent litigation is more unpredictable since the Patent Trial and Appeal Board was established.

Acquiring patents is more like buying a futures contract than investing in securities, which historically, at least, tend to bounce back over time. Patents also lack price transparency and market liquidity, which are essential for most investors’ comfort level, and are subject to judicial and political winds.

So, what do secondary market buyers know that others don’t?

Bargain Basement

In “Au contraire?,” The Intangible Investor column in the July IAM magazine, I consider patents as an asset class, and those brave investors with the courage (and cash) to recognize opportunity where others see adversity. IAM subscribers can read it here. 

“Current low IP company share prices are a road to finding a bottom in an emerging market,” says Mark Argento, head of capital markets and a senior research analyst at Lake Street Capital Partners. “It is a part of the process of patents becoming more widely understood and accepted as assets. While the shakeout is unpleasant for some, it is part of an evolutionary process from which at least some will benefit.”

Screen Shot 2016-05-17 at 10.21.14 PM

*****

Benjamin Graham wrote in The Intelligent Investor, a highly regarded book about value investing: “The investor’s chief problem – and even his worst enemy – is likely to be himself.”

To be a true contrarian, an investor needs to do what others are not doing, even when it may seem unwise to do so. It takes guts to go against a market and one’s own instincts.

*****

“Patents as an Asset Class” will be the subject of a debate I am moderating at IPBC Global in Barcelona on June 7. Stop by to hear the pros and cons of patents as assets. The IPBC session has the makings of a very lively exchange. Audience participation is encouraged. Drinks will be served directly after.

Image source: valueinvestasia.com; novelinvestor.com 

Litigation, News, People, Transactions, Uncategorized
, , , , , , , , , , ,

Named on 40+ patents chemist sleeps in car on a Brooklyn Street

March 4, 2016 by Bruce Berman 2 Comments

For more than a year a man slept in his SUV parked on the upscale Park Slope section of Brooklyn.

The man, call him Gene, a Ph.D. and organic chemist who did his post-doctoral work at Columbia, is named on 44 patents. How he found himself in this unenviable position is the subject of an provocative page-one feature today in The New York Times.

By last summer word and rumor were spreading on Fifth Street’s email exchange, ordinarily used for organizing block parties. An unnamed Man Living in His Car on Fifth Street was causing a problem. He was pouring urine from a bedpan onto the curb. The woman fostering his cats learned that he had copied her key. And what about the small children on the block?

Who is this Person?

Neighbors organized and went to bat for Gene, said Caroline Batzdorf, a Fifth Street resident, who said she was gratified by the positive shift in attitudes.

“Some of the people who were literally saying, ‘What’s this person doing on our block?’ are now, ‘Thank God there’s humanity in people,’” she said. “But what if this were a person of a different race? Who didn’t have a Ph.D.? Who someone didn’t know?”

According to New York Times a grant from the National Institutes of Health paid for Gene’s postdoctoral work. At a large (unnamed) pharmaceutical company, he worked with a team on variations of an immunosuppressant, and compounds useful in treating diabetes.

Records list the Boise, Idaho-born chemist as a co-inventor on at least 44 “composition of matter” patents in the United States and Europe. The patents, the article reminds us, are owned by the company.

“Making the Journey from Menace to Neighbor, All on One Brooklyn Block,” can be found here.

Image source: nyt.com; dailycamera.com (person in featured image is not Gene)

News, People, Places, Uncategorized
, , , , , , , ,

Annual report: IP CloseUp visits are up 32% in 2015 to 24,000

December 30, 2015 by Bruce Berman 2 Comments

2015 was a year of growth for IP CloseUp, as visits increased to 24,000 and subscriptions were up, too.

The busiest day of the year was Christmas Day when there were 482 views of “Kearns’ Son Still Fuming Over Wiper Blade Fight.”

The post about the continued anger of inventor Robert Kearns family over his treatment by automobile makers, depicted in the movie, “Flash of Genius,” was the most popular for 2015, with, with 6,760 visits. It continues to be a marshall.11-640x480perennial favorite.

Other popular IP CloseUp posts for 2015 were “For Samsung charity begins at ‘home’; Midland, TX,”

“Leading brands increasingly have the most valuable patents,”

“Silicon Valley: Too big to fail, or too big not to?” and

“Low R&D cost per patent is a poor indicator of Flash_of_genius_post[1]good return.”

The most avid readers were from the U.S., Canada and the UK, followed by Germany, Australia, India, Brazil, the Netherlands and Japan. In all, readers from 131 countries accessed IPCU posts in 2015.

*****

Thank you readers for making IP CloseUp one of the most respected IP blogs, followed not just by IP professionals, but by investors, business executives and journalists.

Readers: Please keep sending your comments – We love hearing from you!

Image source: ipcloseup.com

interbrandtop36brands

Litigation, News, Research, Transactions, Uncategorized
, , , , , , , , , ,

“Patent Investor” tracks licensing company shares & developments

December 21, 2015 by Bruce Berman 0 Comments

A new weekly is the first to feature in-depth coverage of public intellectual property monetization companies (PIPCOs). 

I’ve been following The Patent Investor for a few weeks, wondering what news it could provide beyond what I already know and hear about the PIPCO space.

What I discovered is that TPI regularly contains news of developments and trends useful to those interested in or affected by patent licensing businesses – especially the publicly held kind. Editor/reporter Dan Lonkevich goes beyond news releases and news about PIPCOs reported in the business press, to provide the relevant facts that investors need to make informed decisions, and those on that defendants in NPE disputes may wish to be aware of.

He is also not afraid to report bad news or delve into SEC filings, nor is he reluctant to portray a company in a less than favorable light – essential for a credible investor newsletter.

Lonkevich previously worked as the senior editor for The DealFlow Report, a unit of The Street Inc. Prior to that he was a reporter for Bloomberg News in New York. While at Bloomberg, he covered the insurance TPI_Mastheadbusiness, mergers and acquisitions and oil and gas companies. Prior to that, he worked as an associate editor for The National Underwriter and was a reporter for Bestweek, a newsletter  covering the insurance business published by insurance rating company A.M. Best Co.

The Patent Investor, which began publication last year, looks at the publicly listed businesses involved that license and sell patents, and the performance of their shares. TPI differs from Intangible Investor, a column that I write for IAM magazine, which considers PIPCOs, as well as a broad range of indirect investors or IP stakeholders, including operating businesses.

The website describes the newsletter as “uniquely and solely devoted to covering the patent monetization business, unlike more mainstream business and legal publications. It is intended to be of interest to investors, inventors, entrepreneurs, attorneys and investment bankers who work with the growing number of patent monetization companies.”

At $899 for an annual group subscription ($299 for individual subscriptions) TPI, while good value, is not for everyone. However, the cover of each issue, with the first paragraph of key stories, is available for free. Those interested in a sample issue or subscription can receive one.

To see the cover of the latest issue or for a sample, go here.

TPI’s article archive can be found here.

Image source: thepatentinvestor.com

Litigation, News, People, Transactions, Uncategorized
, , , , , , , ,
Older Entries

%d bloggers like this: