monetization lecture
Post on 06-Apr-2018
236 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/2/2019 Monetization Lecture
1/46
Patent Monetization
What, Who and How
-
8/2/2019 Monetization Lecture
2/46
! Patrick Anderson! Licensed attorney! JD from Michigan State! BS in Mechanical Engineering! Ive worked everywhere:
!Engineer for major auto supplier! The IRS
! Paralegal for non-IP firm! IP boutique! In house for Fortune 100! Large GP firm! Solo practice! Patent consulting firm
Introduction
2
Contact:
Web: http://gametimeip.comEmail: patrick@patentcalls.com
Phone: 810-275-0751Skype: Patrick.R.Anderson
Twitter: @PandersonPLLC
-
8/2/2019 Monetization Lecture
3/46
! Patent Calls is a patent analytics services firmspecializing in:! Patent Analysis
! Relevancy analysis! Valuation
! Patent Sourcing! Strategic needs analysis! Acquisition opportunity creation
! Litigation support! Technology based! Testifying experts available
About Patent Calls
3
-
8/2/2019 Monetization Lecture
4/46
! What is Patent Monetization?! What is patent monetization and how did we get here?
! Who Can Help Me?! The intermediaries that make it happen
! How Does It Work?! How patent monetization works! The Future?
! A glimpse and what may be coming
Agenda
4
-
8/2/2019 Monetization Lecture
5/46
WHAT IS MONETIZATION?
- HOW DID WE GET HERE?
5
-
8/2/2019 Monetization Lecture
6/46
What Is Patent Monetization
6
-
8/2/2019 Monetization Lecture
7/46
Is It New?
7
Shortly after his return from England in 1849, Howe inspected some of the new sewing
machines that were now on sale and he concluded that they infringed his 1846 patent.
Regardless of what other features these new sewing machines may have exhibited, they used
the central elements claimed in Howes patent. Since he was destitute, Howe requiredan investor to finance his patent infringement lawsuits, and he at last convinced George W.
Bliss to invest in his litigation strategy (as well as purchase a one-half interest in Howes patent
from a previous financial backer, George Fisher, who had not realized any return on his
investment).FNAt this point, Howe was ready to undertake his main preoccupationindeed,
his main occupationfor the next several years: namely, suing the infringers of his patent forroyalties.
FN: In exchange for a partial ownership interest in his 1846 patent, Fisher provided Howe withapproximately $2000. Fisher thus sold his one-half interest to Bliss for approximately $3500. Id.
53 Ariz. L. Rev. 165, 183
-
8/2/2019 Monetization Lecture
8/46
! Most inventors do notfile applications with the purpose ofconducting ex postlicensing and/or litigating their patents.! Is Wal-Mart in business to acquire real estate and build
expensive structures? Or is that an expense they justify becauseits the most effective means to sell their goods? Is QVC inbusiness to answer phone calls? Or are operators an expense
QVC accepts because their sales would suffer under a fullyautomated system?
From:http://gametimeip.com/2011/05/06/are-patent-assertion-companies-in-business-to-litigate/
! Inventors generally want to create patent develop sell.
! Unfortunately, it doesnt always happen that way
Litigation Is Not A Business Model
8
-
8/2/2019 Monetization Lecture
9/46
! For several reasons, this plan frequently fails:! Lack of funding! Market moves to quickly! Patent Office moves to slowly! Invention relates to components not final products
So Why Dont They?
9
-
8/2/2019 Monetization Lecture
10/46
Howe, For Example:
10
53 Ariz. L. Rev 165, 176
-
8/2/2019 Monetization Lecture
11/46
! Expected process:! Invention Patent License Production Sales Royalties! Reality:! Invent Patent Production Sales License Royalties
Does the order matter?
11
Less incentive b/c produceralready has the know-how
FUNDAMENTAL QUESTION: Should the order affect the factof compensation itself?
Or just the amount based on the value of the transfer?
-
8/2/2019 Monetization Lecture
12/46
! Large companies cant track everyinbound licensing opportunity! One department might reject an opportunity
while a month later another departmentbuilds its own solution.
! Product convergence combines previously unrelatedinventions
! Pocket computer combining day planner,camera, web browser, TV, video games, GPS and countless othertools.
! Technology allows businesses to expand their market size.! Traditional retail use software-based solutions to reach untappedmarkets.
! Some companies are just evil
Meanwhile, its not 1850 anymore
12
-
8/2/2019 Monetization Lecture
13/46
! Howe quickly contacted Singer, asserting that the SingerSewing Machine infringed Howes 1846 patent [and]demanded a $2000 royalty payment from I.M. Singer & Co. Singers characteristically hotheaded nature asserteditself: he argued with Howe, and then he threatened tokick him down the steps of the machine shop.
! Singers attorney wrote in an 1852 letter that Howe is aperfect humbug. He knows quite well he never inventedanything of value. We have sued him for saying that he isentitled exclusively to use of the combination of needle andshuttle . . . .
53 Ariz. L. Rev. 165, 183-84
Dont Believe Me?
13
-
8/2/2019 Monetization Lecture
14/46
! But Androids success has yielded something else: ahostile, organized campaign against Android by Microsoft,Oracle, Apple and other companies, waged through boguspatents.
Taken from When Patents Attack Android,
http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/08/when-patents-attack-android.html
! Barnes & Noble tried to convince the ITC it was illegal forMicrosoft to charg[e] a licensing fee that is commensuratewith the cost of licensing Microsofts own mobile operating
system and to assert patents relate[d] to trivial designchoices and implementation details.
Taken from the ITCs Initial Determination Granting Microsofts Motion For Summary Determination ofRespondents First Affirmative Defense of Patent Misuse
Surely, Companies Are More Sophisticated Today?
14
-
8/2/2019 Monetization Lecture
15/46
! The process:!
Discover infringement! Start a conversation! Hire a lawyer! File a lawsuit / get sued
! Problems:! High stakes provokes a legal fight! Volatile outcome (either get $100M or $0)! Posturing:
! Patent owner saysit will get an injunction! Company says its worthless
! Nevertheless, 80% end in settlement/license! Consequence: Navigators wanted!! We know where its going, lets get there more quickly
Traditional Licensing
15
Not always in that order!
-
8/2/2019 Monetization Lecture
16/46
WHO ARE THE PATENT
MONETIZERS?
16
-
8/2/2019 Monetization Lecture
17/46
Have Patent, Will Travel?
17
-
8/2/2019 Monetization Lecture
18/46
Advisory Services (Strategic) Who Can Help You License?
18
-
8/2/2019 Monetization Lecture
19/46
Advisory Services (Financial) Who Can Lend You Money?
19
-
8/2/2019 Monetization Lecture
20/46
Who Might (Directly or Indirectly) Buy Your Patent?
20
-
8/2/2019 Monetization Lecture
21/46
Who Can Help Sell Your Patent?
21
-
8/2/2019 Monetization Lecture
22/46
HOW IS IT DONE?
22
-
8/2/2019 Monetization Lecture
23/46
! Patent owner gets little to no up front cash! Acquirer receives assignment or exclusive license
in exchange for promise to pay X% of recoveries(typically a double digit % for $0 cash, or single
digit % for 5-6 figures cash)! Acquirer takes business risk financing cost ofnegotiation (including litigation).
! Summary:! Patent owner places faith in acquirer.! Acquirer takes legal/business risk.
Offensive Acquisition
23
-
8/2/2019 Monetization Lecture
24/46
! Patent owner receives no up front cash.! Agent receives exclusive right to negotiate and
make licensing decisions on behalf of patentowner
! Agent promises to pay a share (typically 50%) ofproceeds to patent owner! Agent takes business risk financing cost of
negotiation (including litigation).
! Summary:! Patent owner places faith in agent.! Patent owner takes legal risk.! Agent takes business risk.
Exclusive Agency
24
-
8/2/2019 Monetization Lecture
25/46
! Patent owner receives no up front cash.*! Advisor receives non-exclusive right to negotiate and
propose licensing terms in exchange for a share (typically25%).
! Advisor recommends legal counsel (at preferred rates,typically 15-25%) for any litigation required.! Patent owner retains ownership and decision-makingauthority.
! Expenses may be financed by related funding source.*! Summary:! Advisor and patent owner must trust each other.
! Patent owner takes legal risk.! Advisor/Patent owner share business risk.
Advisory Services
25
* Financing agent loans to patent owner in exchange for another 10-25% of future expected returns.
-
8/2/2019 Monetization Lecture
26/46
! ICAP / Ocean Tomo:! Conduct patent auctions! Buyers include offensive acquirers as well as clients
under the advise of the advisory services
! High risk due to all cash sale! Private brokers
! Too many to list them all! Buyers include many of the same parties! Unlike auctions, shared risk is possible
Brokers
26
-
8/2/2019 Monetization Lecture
27/46
! Invention Capital Investment! Example: Intellectual Ventures! Purpose: profit from long-term strategic investment! Philosophy: invention as a functional discipline / infinite redneck theorem! Result: too early to tell, but so far investors do not appear to have turned a profit
! IP Risk Management! Example: RPX Corp.! Purpose: profit from mitigated legal risk! Philosophy: too many middlemen / retail is for suckers! Result: accounting suggests positive cash flows, but doubts remain; RPX exploring
more traditional business models
! Market-based Licensing! Example: ICAP Patent Brokerage! Purpose: profit from setting the retail market! Philosophy: sell discounted licenses at a premium / lawyers make too much money! Result: Large collection of CNSs auctioned in September; no results released
Non-Traditional Licensing Business Models
27
-
8/2/2019 Monetization Lecture
28/46
INTELLECTUAL VENTURES
28
-
8/2/2019 Monetization Lecture
29/46
! Investment capital acquired from:! Incumbent technology companies:
! Adobe, Apple, Cisco, Google, Microsoft! Universities:
! Minnesota, Penn, Stanford, Texas! Venture funds:
! Charles River, Legacy Ventures, TIFF Private Equity! Representative list full list available on:
!PatentlyO! IAM Magazine
! Gametime IP
Business Model
29
-
8/2/2019 Monetization Lecture
30/46
! Pre-Litigation Patent Spend & Licensing Success:!
Spent: $1.2 B to acquire its first 30,000 patents! $40,000 per patent! Earned: $2B in licensing revenue for what is now a chest of 35,000 patents
!
-
8/2/2019 Monetization Lecture
31/46
! Litigation by investor Xilinx revealed:! IV used Xilinxs money to acquire a set of patents that
Xilinx now needs to license.
! Read:Xilinx Lawsuit Reveals More Of Intellectual
Ventures Strategy
Too Aggressive?
31
-
8/2/2019 Monetization Lecture
32/46
RPX
32
-
8/2/2019 Monetization Lecture
33/46
! Utilize investment capital to acquire patents andpatent rights (more on that later).! Sell memberships to operating companies basedon revenue.
!Members receive licenses to all RPX patents.! Licenses vest after 2-3 years.! In other words, membership renewal driven by new
patent acquisitions.
More detail here: http://gametimeip.com/2011/01/31/why-is-rpx-going-public-ask-willie-sutton/
Business Model
33
-
8/2/2019 Monetization Lecture
34/46
! Initial Public Offering valued the business over $1B! Claims 100% membership renewal so far
! Showing positive cash-flows! Business model reduces costs associated with
litigation and negotiation
RPX Success
34
-
8/2/2019 Monetization Lecture
35/46
! RPX acquires sub-license rights from patentowners.! In other words, they pay for the right to grant X number
of non-exclusive licenses.
! Existing RPX members immediately licensed.! Additional license rights used to sell memberships
to new customers.
Read more here: http://gametimeip.com/2011/02/04/free-rides-acquisitions-and-sustainability-after-the-rpx-ipo/
Current Niche Buy The Milk, Not the Cow
35
-
8/2/2019 Monetization Lecture
36/46
! Enforcer E causing trouble for victim V.! Protector X sells victim V his security services.
! Enforcer E consistently leaves Xs customersalone.
Just asconspiracy theories suggested CIA involvementin domestic terror attacks as a pretense to securing post ColdWar funding for the US intelligence community, RPX may also be motivated to periodically remind clients of the value
of defensive aggregation by allowing its high profile clients to languish in litigation.
http://gametimeip.com/2011/03/09/rpx-ipo-patent-aggregation-terrorists-and-goldilocks/
Does this sound familiar?
36
-
8/2/2019 Monetization Lecture
37/46
One Company Thought So
37
Read more here: http://gametimeip.com/2011/05/31/patent-aggregator-rpx-accused-of-extortion-racketeering-wire-fraud/
-
8/2/2019 Monetization Lecture
38/46
! For Patent Owners:! Single point of negotiation! Quick sale of multiple licenses! Let RPX do the legwork, you cash the checks
! For licensees:! Bulk discount! No per patenttransaction fees! Hopefully get lucky during membership period
RPX Appeal
38
-
8/2/2019 Monetization Lecture
39/46
! Despite making their name in defensive aggregation,RPXs recent deal with Alcatel-Lucent sounds more liketraditional licensing:
! During a quarterly earnings call, Alcatel CEO said:! So when we are working together with RPX, we discovered
that the ability they have to do syndicate licensing, where
basically, youre part of a club, you pay for the usage of it, butyou dont own it because we own it, but you have the sameprotection as if you would buy it, is a very innovative new wayof looking to a patent.
! An independent analyst suggested:! This activity should be a strong pull for the 200+ prospective
members that are currently in [RPXs] pipeline and that they aretrying to sign up.
! In other words, this may succeed where their currentproduct offering fails in providing a value proposition
Value Proposition?
39
-
8/2/2019 Monetization Lecture
40/46
ICAP PATENT BROKERAGE
CNS AUCTION
40
B i M d l
-
8/2/2019 Monetization Lecture
41/46
Business Model
41
ICAP Li A i S
-
8/2/2019 Monetization Lecture
42/46
! Patent Owner: Round Rock Research, LLC! Purchase price: $35M! Buyer: Unknown, believed to be a PC or
smartphone manufacturer
! Patent rights acquired: non-exclusive right tocontinue practicing 4000+ patents once owned byMicron
Read more here: http://gametimeip.com/2011/03/31/patent-litigation-experiences-k-t-event/
ICAP Live Auction Success
42
ICAP B fit P t t O
-
8/2/2019 Monetization Lecture
43/46
ICAP Benefits Patent Owner
43
ICAP B fit Li
-
8/2/2019 Monetization Lecture
44/46
ICAP Benefits Licensee
44
R t il Wh l l C i
-
8/2/2019 Monetization Lecture
45/46
Retail (ICAP):
! For Sellers! Discover the going rate! Obtain single sale plus
market data to supportfurther negotiation
! Control over futuremarketability
! For Buyers! Pay no more than the next
most willing buyer! (Hopefully) get a better
deal than competition
! Buy only what you need
Wholesale (RPX):
! For Sellers! Set a bulk rate! Obtain multiple sales for
single negotiation
!No control over subsequentbuyers
! For Buyers! Pay a predictable rate for
many licenses! Get a comparable deal
based on market share
! Buy more than necessary
Retail vs Wholesale Comparison
45
Th F t ?
-
8/2/2019 Monetization Lecture
46/46
! How will ICAPs model scale?! After several months, ICAP has yet to release any official results! How will patent reform affect industry-wide licensing
efforts?! Litigation trends appear to be returning to normal pre-AIA levels
! Will either bundled (wholesale) or unbundled (retail) winout?! Of course, there could be a long market for both
! Will unbundled licensing be further abstracted?!
Will patent owners sell at market rates for fixed product quantity?! Will patent ownership be openly traded like stocks today?! Attempts have been made, but nothing successful yet.
The Future?
top related