“Finding Your Way From Patent Value to Return-On-Investment. A Patent Strategy Case Study.” Richardson et. al. IPWatchdog (August 2017)

By | Featured, Publication | No Comments

Our client’s executive team needed to better understand the investment and expected risk reduction return from their patent portfolio. We helped them build a financial model and direct their patent strategy using an approach where we identified and maximized patent value.

“Finding Your Way From Patent Value to Return-On-Investment. A Patent Strategy Case Study.” Richardson et. al. IPWatchdog (August 2017), available here.

“Patent Quality Isn’t the Question. Patent Value Is the Question.” Richardson et. al. IPWatchdog (August 2017)

By | Publication | No Comments

Why is patent value a better metric to use to set patent strategy? What sources of patent value can be identified for high technology companies? We review how patents are used and how they can be valued based upon their use.

“Patent Quality Isn’t the Question. Patent Value Is the Question.” Richardson et. al. IPWatchdog (August 2017), available here.

“You Need Defensive Patents but You Don’t Have Any. Now What? A Case Study.” Richardson et. al. IPWatchdog (August 2017)

By | Publication | No Comments

“You Need Defensive Patents but You Don’t Have Any. Now What? A Case Study.” Richardson et. al. IPWatchdog (August 2017)

The setting is familiar: a large corporate asserter uses its patents against a smaller, high-growth company with no patents. Companies like Qualcomm, IBM, Nokia, and Microsoft regularly assert their patents. This case study describes how one of our clients included patent buying into their patent strategy to successfully defended against a corporate assertion by acquiring patents in the open market.

Also, available in our case studies here.

“Now a Big Company Wants You to Take a Patent License…” Richardson et. al. IPWatchdog (July 2017)

By | Publication | No Comments

Most high technology companies have a good grasp of the challenges and solutions for dealing with patent trolls. However, successful high technology startups face a threat beyond patent trolls: large corporate patent asserters looking to license their patents. These companies are not patent trolls by most definitions, and companies should adapt their approach to handling patent assertions from these kinds of companies. We explore how we worked with a successful startup client to handle such an assertion.

“Now a Big Company Wants You to Take a Patent License…” Richardson et. al. IPWatchdog (July 2017), available here.

“Litigation and IPRs: More Dangerous Than You Thought?” Richardson et. al. IPWatchdog (April 2017)

By | Publication | No Comments

Part five of the six-part IPWatchdog examination of the 2016 market has ROL Group looking into the risk for companies from patent assets on the market. We look into what types of packages are more likely to lead to litigation, and when in a patent’s lifetime are you more likely to expect trouble.

“Litigation and IPRs: More Dangerous Than You Thought?” Richardson et. al. IPWatchdog (April 2017), available here.

“Patent Sales Rates Decreased in 2016, but Patent Market Remains Viable and Robust.” Richardson et. al. IPWatchdog (April 2017)

By | Publication | No Comments

In this fourth installment in the six-part series of the 2016 market report from IPWatchdog, the ROL Group team helps shed light on the market trends that patent buyers and sellers should keep in mind when evaluating patents.

“Patent Sales Rates Decreased in 2016, but Patent Market Remains Viable and Robust.” Richardson et. al. IPWatchdog (April 2017), available here.

“2016 Patent Market Report: Patent Brokers and Patent Packages.” Richardson et. al. IPWatchdog (April 2017)

By | Publication | No Comments

2016 saw a significant rise in both the number of patent brokers and patent packages. Though the frequency of package sizes is similar to 2015, there is a remarkable increase in single-asset packages in 2016, and we continue to see a trend of the market favoring smaller packages due to their marketability. We explore this topic in Part 2 of our 6-Part series on our 2016 Patent Market Report.

“2016 Patent Market Report: Patent Brokers and Patent Packages.” Richardson et. al. IPWatchdog (April 2017), available here.

“2016 Patent Market Report: Overview.” Richardson et. al. IPWatchdog (April 2017)

By | Publication | No Comments

While 2016 may have seemed like a tough year for the patent market – with dropping sales, decreasing prices, and the effects of Alice continuing to take its toll on fintech – there are also many new opportunities emerging. Our 2016 Patent Market Report shows that despite these setbacks, the patent market continues to be robust.

“2016 Patent Market Report: Overview.” Richardson et. al. IPWatchdog (April 2017), available here.

“2016 Patent Market Report: Patent Prices and Key Diligence Data.” Richardson et. al. IPWatchdog (April 2017)

By | Publication | No Comments

In this publication from IPWatchdog the ROL Group team takes a look at what patent buyers and sellers should expect from the current market. We offer comprehensive pricing analysis to determine whether your estimations for patents are in the ballpark.

“2016 Patent Market Report: Patent Prices and Key Diligence Data.” Richardson et. al. IPWatchdog (April 2017), available here.

“How and Why LinkedIn Learned to Love Patents.” Harrington et. al. IAM Magazine Issue 82 (March 2017)

By | Publication | No Comments

LinkedIn was a big brand name with a small patent portfolio – a combination that made it vulnerable to a patent attack. In 2012 the LinkedIn decided to do something about it. We work through the case study of how LinkedIn determined its vulnerabilities, set a patent development and patent buying program, and fundamentally changed its risk profile. We show how LinkedIn bought over 900 patents over four years.

“How and Why LinkedIn Learned to Love Patents.” Harrington et. al. IAM Magazine Issue 82 (March 2017), available here.

“Inside the 2016 Brokered Patent Market.” Richardson et. al. IAM Magazine Vol 81 (January 2017)

By | Publication | No Comments

In our continuing series of annual publications on the activity in the secondary patent market, we see that the only constant is change. Although asking prices have stabilized, sales are down, bringing the value of the market down to $165 million from $233 million last year. However, the launch of both IAM Market and the Industry Patent Purchase Program (IP3) has introduced new transaction opportunities. At the same time, the impact of negative patent decisions is becoming apparent as non-practicing entities (NPEs) pull back from the market. For the first time, purchases by corporations have exceeded NPE purchases. Even the biggest NPEs have been affected, with RPX succeeding Intellectual Ventures (IV) as the new buying leader. Further, the data shows that the US Supreme Court’s decision in Alice has crushed much of the nascent financial technology (fintech) patent market and affected software package sales rates. Finally, we received better litigation data this year, and it appears that the litigation risk from sold patents is much higher than previously reported – you may want to reconsider your risk models and membership of defensive aggregators.

“Inside the 2016 Brokered Patent Market.” Richardson et. al. IAM Magazine Vol 81 (January 2017), available here PDF.

“The Strategic Counter-Assertion Model for Patent Portfolio ROI.” Richardson et. al. IAM Magazine (July 2015)

By | Publication | No Comments

IAM Magazine
Targeting the revenues of other companies according to the patent assertion risk they present effectively defines your patent development and external acquisition strategies. We show how to build a financial model to determine where you spend your patent development and buying dollars and then how to calculate and ROI.

Link

“What’s Inside IV’s Patent Portfolio.” Richardson et. al. IAM Magazine (July 2014)

By | Publication | No Comments

IAM Magazine
In December 2013 Intellectual Ventures (IV) took a step towards transparency by publicly listing about 33,000 of its patent assets, representing 82% of its patent monetization portfolio. Analyzing IV’s portfolio has now become a tractable problem. Here are some of the questions we answered: what does IV buy, what characteristics does IV look for in a patent, what does IV do after the purchases, and who did IV buy from.

Link

“Turning the Spotlight on the Brokered Patent Market.” Richardson et. al. IAM Magazine (January 2013)

By | Publication | No Comments

Although sales of brokered patent packages reach an estimated $153 million a year, lack of data makes this a tricky market to evaluate. We attempt to illuminate this information void with our review of 186 patent packages consisting of a total of 5,394 issued US patents and 7,595 total patent assets worldwide. Here is our detailed report on the 2013 brokered patent market.

“Turning the Spotlight on the Brokered Patent Market.” Richardson et. al. IAM Magazine (January 2013), available here.

“The Non-Dilutive Cash Injection: Selling Your Patents.” Richardson et. al. WSGR Bulletin (July 2009)

By | Publication | No Comments

You can sell your patents for a cash infusion. If you have a patent portfolio, you may want to consider selling your patents to meet your cash needs. We analyze the steps to selling your patents, including developing the sales package and finding the right price.

“The Non-Dilutive Cash Injection: Selling Your Patents.” Richardson et. al. WSGR Bulletin (July 2009), available here.

“The Patent Transactions Market at a Crossroads.” Richardson et. al. IAM Magazine (March 2009)

By | Publication | No Comments

We interviewed leading IP executives across the high tech industry as well as clients, colleagues and even competitors to provide you with valuable insights into the future of the patent market. Our conclusion: there has never been a better time to acquire high-quality patents at low prices.

“The Patent Transactions Market at a Crossroads.” Richardson et. al. IAM Magazine (March 2009), available here.