PATENT TROLLS
to business conditions, shareholder pressure or a combination of both—are themselves making far greater efforts to monetise their portfolios through licensing or sale.
Tis trend is exemplified by companies in the hi-tech space such as Qualcomm, the global provider of wireless technology and services, which has an extensive worldwide patent portfolio and a division focusing on licensing and collaboration.
And then there’s Motorola, where major shareholders like Carl Icahn and Starboard Value were a driving force behind the splitting out of Motorola Mobility—a move undertaken primarily to realise the untapped potential of the IP intangibles on the company’s balance sheet. As we saw, Motorola Mobility was immediately swallowed up by Google, providing significant returns for Motorola’s investors. Starboard Value also has the largest institutional position in Unwired Planet, a company that is looking to monetise intellectual assets covering wireless technologies from OpenWave.
Monetisation is a key driver in the changing face of
are frequently undertaking optimisation
the IP industry. At CPA Global, we patent portfolio
projects for our corporate
clients—providing insights into the strength of the company’s portfolio, based on competitive intelligence, the IP landscape in their sector, and the identification of prized technology and/or technology gaps.
However, the aim is not only to highlight the assets that are core to the business and must be protected at all costs, but also to assess other highly rated assets, which are not protecting cash flow, a current product or a planned product or service. Tese dormant ‘non-core’ assets could, in theory, earn returns via a licensing agreement with another party or an outright sale.
heavily on assertion—reportedly grew from a market capitalisation of around $90 million to $1.75 billion by mid-2012.
Many NPEs argue that they are looking to form partnerships and to encourage new approaches to open innovation, but assertion ultimately remains a key weapon and strong deterrent. Consequently, it is hardly surprising that the more aggressive troll-like stance of some organisations has prompted industry to lobby for more effective regulation of NPE activities and
www.worldipreview.com
the emergence of ‘anti-troll’ organisations such as provider of patent risk solutions RPX, which are helping businesses to adopt more robust defensive tactics—at a price—when confronted by hostile trolls.
Until two years ago, companies were concerned primarily with how to counter trolls’ attacks and avoid costly litigation. But the landscape has changed since 2011. Not only has there been an explosion in the number of NPEs, but some of the world’s IP-rich corporations—whether due
Once the IP assets have been identified, the next stage is to facilitate their monetisation. Tis can be done via a ‘direct’ licence, by one of the many third-party brokerage outfits or—and here’s where the picture becomes more blurred—via an NPE.
Nokia, Alcatel-Lucent, and Ericsson are just a few high profile examples of companies that are working with third party entities to monetise their IP assets. Unwired Planet, for example, has acquired more than 2,000 patents from Ericsson in a relationship where both parties will profit from any resulting licensing or sale. Alcatel-Lucent is offering access to 20,000 plus patents in its portfolio through a licensing syndicate with RPX.
World Intellectual Property Review September/October 2013 149
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192 |
Page 193 |
Page 194 |
Page 195 |
Page 196