Category

Publication

“A Rapid Analysis of Intel’s Connected Devices Patent Portfolio.” Richardson. IAM Media (March 2020)

By | Publication | No Comments

Late last year, Intel resurfaced the sale of a connected devices patent portfolio that was sidelined during the $1 billion sale of the majority of their smartphone modem assets to Apple (which included a pile of cellular wireless related patents). Intel has opened the sale to operating companies, defensive aggregators and even NPEs (non-binding indications of interest are due from bidders at the end of this month). We were asked to review the remaining portfolio and determine how it fits with the buying needs of participants in the secondary patent market.

“A Rapid Analysis of Intel’s Connected Devices Patent Portfolio.” Richardson. IAM Media (March 2020), available here.

“How the Threat of Unsold Rights, the Rise of the In-House Dealmaker and a Revolution in Analytics Are Re-Shaping the IP Deals Market.” Lloyd. IAM Media (December 2019)

By | Featured, Publication | No Comments

The current issue of IAM carries the latest annual survey on the brokered patent deals market from the team at Richardson Oliver Insights. Since we first started running this analysis in 2013 (subscribers can see the first piece here) some things in the deals space have stayed the same while a lot, not surprisingly, has changed. One thing that has remained constant is the quality of the insights from ROI with the survey becoming a must-read for anyone involved in IP transactions.

“How the Threat of Unsold Rights, the Rise of the In-House Dealmaker and a Revolution in Analytics Are Re-Shaping the IP Deals Market.” Lloyd. IAM Media (December 2019), available here.

The 2019 Brokered Patent Market Report is Now Available

By | Featured, Publication | No Comments

Our full 2019 Brokered Market Report is now available for download here. Download and learn the latest about the brokered patent market. Key take-aways include:

  • The average asking price of a US patent was $280,000, up from last year
  • 48% of all transacted deals in 2019 were bought by NPEs
  • $300 million worth of brokered deals closed in 2019

“ROI’s brokered patent market report continues to be one of the year’s most read and anticipated pieces amongst IAM’s subscriber base of global IP executives and professionals” – Joff Wild, Editor in Chief of IAM

This article first appeared in IAM Winter, published by Law Business Research – IP Division. To view the issue in full, please go to www.IAM-media.com.

“The 2019 Brokered Patent Market.” Richardson et. al. IAM Magazine (Jan 2020).

Our 2019 Brokered Market Report is available for free download here.

“U.S. Patent Sales by Universities and Research Institutes.” Love et al. Research Handbook on Intellectual Property and Technology Transfer (August 2019)

By | Featured, Publication | No Comments

In addition to licensing or litigating patent rights, universities have the option to sell their patents outright to third parties. In this chapter, we explore the extent to which universities and other nonprofit research institutes currently participate in the secondary market for patents.

“U.S. Patent Sales by Universities and Research Institutes.” Love et. al. Research Handbook on Intellectual Property and Technology Transfer (August 2019), available here.

“AT&T’s Portfolio is a Treasure Trove for Buyers.” Diakun. IAM Market (February 2019)

By | Publication | No Comments

IAM recently covered AT&T’s increased activity in the secondary patent market, with Lyft, Uber and Facebook among the companies that have purchased its assets.  The telecoms giant has a significant portfolio – in terms of volume and quality – which has attracted a number of businesses looking to bolster their own holdings.  

“AT&T’s Portfolio is a Treasure Trove for Buyers.” Diakun. IAM Market (February 2019), available here.

“Brokered Patents Are Not Junk—and the Reasons Will Surprise You.” Ågren et. al. IPWatchdog (January 2019)

By | Publication | No Comments

Occasionally, we hear people say, “brokered patents are all junk.” This begs the question, “are operating companies and non-practicing entities (NPEs) spending hundreds of millions of dollars buying junk patents?” Luckily, the short answer is no. We know clients have successfully bought and used brokered patents to substantially alter their licensing and litigation posture at a lower cost than the alternatives. We also know that patents on the brokered market rank higher than average patents (See “Finding the Best Patents — Forward Citation Analysis Still Wins”, by Oliver, et al.). So why this disconnect? We are victims of our own cognitive biases and the behavioral economic traps that make it harder for buyers to find and buy patents.

 “Brokered Patents Are Not Junk—and the Reasons Will Surprise You.” Ågren et. al. IPWatchdog (January 2019), here. 


“Finding a Role for Insurance in a Technology-Driven Economy.” Freestone. InsuranceERM (July 2018)

By | Publication | No Comments

Tim Freestone explores why the growth in intellectual property and patent risks has not been matched by a corresponding growth in insurance. Tim interviews industry veterans including Kent Richardson on patent infringement insurance opportunities.

“Finding a Role for Insurance in a Technology-Driven Economy.” Freestone. InsuranceERM (July 2018), available here.

“SAS: When the Patent Office Institutes IPR It Must Decide Patentability of All Challenged Claims.” Quinn et. al. IPWatchdog (April 2018)

By | Publication | No Comments

Yesterday the United States Supreme Court issued decisions in both Oil States v. Green Energy and SAS Institute v. Iancu. In Oil States the Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of inter partes review (see here, here and here). In SAS Institute, a 5-4 majority ruled that there is no authorization in the statute for the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to partially institute a petition for inter partes review. Thus, the Supreme Court held that when the Patent Office institutes an inter partes review it must decide the patentability of all of the claims the petitioner has challenged.

To provide instant reaction to the Supreme Court’s decision in SAS Institute we’ve reached out to an All-Star panel of industry experts for their take on this important decision. Their analysis follows.

“SAS: When the Patent Office Institutes IPR It Must Decide Patentability of All Challenged Claims.” Quinn et. al. IPWatchdog (April 2018), available here.