PATENT BUSINESS
value from their patent rights. All patentees have the right to stop those who are practising what their patents teach or demand from them either lost profi ts or reasonable royalties. T e rules outlining the basis for the earliest
what is it, and should I care? “M
Monetisation:
A patent owner is always allowed to cash in on the rights embodied in its patent by either licensing or selling it, says Art Monk of TechInsights.
onetisation” is used by patent owners to describe procedures that help to derive monetary
in the markets the patent applies to. Once granted, a patent becomes a tradable asset and has the value associated with the possible rents its owner is entitled to. T ese last few sentences go to the core of the
patents in Ancient Greece, Italy, and subsequently England have been well recited in literature. All of these patent regimes granted inventors a short- term monopoly to practise their inventions if they disclosed the nature of the invention, meaning others could use them aſt er the monopoly expired. While the patent was in force the patent owners had, and still have, the right to license the invention to others until the patent expires. T is ability to license becomes an asset on
the day the patent is granted. T e patent asset is granted initially to the inventor, and it may be transferred shortly aſt er grant to the company the inventor works for. T erefore, companies accumulate patent assets over time, giving them rights to extract rents from those practising what the patents teach. T e ability to extract rents is a fundamental
aspect of any patent system, regardless of the jurisdiction, and this right confers value on the patent depending on the level of infringement
“ULTIMATELY A PATENTEE MUST DECIDE IF IT IS WILLING TO ASSIGN PATENTS TO FIRMS THAT ARE EXPERTS AT LICENSING.”
correct application of the word “monetise”. A patentee has the right to exclude others from practising its patented inventions or monetise the rights embodied in the patent through legal rent-seeking activities such as licensing or even selling the patent assets to others that have value- based uses for them.
Sell it, license it, or have someone license it for you Monetisation can involve capturing the value of a patent in many diff erent ways through its 20-year life. Licensing to other entities that wish to practise the invention is one way, but there are other mechanisms stemming from other values that may be associated with the patent, such as: • Selling the patent to a licensing company to capture the assertion value of the patent;
• Selling the patent to an operating company to capture the defensive value relative to that company’s adversaries; and
• Selling the patent to a patent defence fund to capture the litigation value associated with the cost of
litigation—avoided by acquiring
the patent and thereby not allowing others to assert it. In such monetisation-focused transactions,
patent rights can be transferred to the parties above either through a full assignment of the patents or an exclusive licence that gives standing to assert.
Non-practising patent owners T e patent courts are set up to handle cases where a plaintiff asserts against a defendant and the defendant counter asserts as a counter-plaintiff . T ere is a chance for the plaintiff and the counter-
72 World Intellectual Property Review May/June 2015 World Intellectual Property Review November/December 2014
Art Monk is vice president, patent brokerage at TechInsights. He has a career spanning 35 years in high-technology business and managing patent divestment and acquisition transactions
internationally. He can be contacted at:
amonk@techinsights.com
plaintiff each to win their cases and therefore it is a matter of determining the diff erence in the damage awards in each direction. In the case of a patentee that ships no product
and provides no services, there can be no countersuit. So the defendant is facing the full level of damages since it cannot off set damages it might be awarded in a countersuit against the damages it must pay its adversary. T is leads to non-practising fi rms having signifi cant leverage in licensing negotiations. Ultimately a patentee must decide if it willing to assign patents to fi rms
is that are
experts at licensing. On the one hand, there can be reputational eff ects on the patentee in its industry if the licensing fi rm asserts against the patentee’s competitors; on the other, there can be positive licensing results based on the expertise and leverage such fi rms have. Each case has to be weighed on its merits.
www.worldipreview.com
SINGKHAM /
SHUTTERSTOCK.COM
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