Regular readers of the IP Asset Maximizer Blog will know that I am a strong advocate of the use of IP analytics by venture capital investors, as well as others. Clearly, VC's need better ways to gauge the appropriateness of an investment when more than 50% of venture investment is a loss. My point of view is based on personal experience with various clients, as well as external review of a few investments that I thought signaled that a review of the IP landscape should have been conducted prior to completing the deal. So, I was glad to see my opinions backed up by real data. Specifically, my friends at IP Vision, a patent landscaping and data company originally out of MIT, conducted an extensive study of 9,000 venture backed firms. The study was done with investors, corporate executives and members of the faculty at Read More
Seeking to Sell Your Patent to a Big Company? Think About These Negotation Tips
For Inventor of 21 Patents, Patent Troll Litigation Not Very Lucrative
Recently, I wrote a post on why I think that patent litigation is not a viable business model for inventors. Given a realistic deconstruction of the costs and possible damage awards, I concluded that, in most situations, it is not realistic for an inventor to presume that she will "hit the jackpot" by suing infringers and extracting settlement or damage awards. I obtained some pushback from this post, mostly from patent litigation lawyers, who contend that I am wrong in my view that patent litigation does not pay for inventors. Of course, everyone is entitled to their opinion, and I respect the views of others, however, no one who objects to my (somewhat) negative view of patent litigation as a business model, has provided me with numbers to discount my economic analysis of patent litigation. This recent post from The Prior Art blog entitled "Revealed! How Much Money a
The Coming Explosion of the Patent Monetization Market: Brought to You by Open Innovation and What Needs to Happen in Order to Speed Up the Process
This week, I got a call out of the blue from a very senior business development person at a Fortune 10 technology company "wanting to know more" about patent licensing and monetization. This was a bit strange: his company has literally dozens of patent professionals on staff, files 100's of patents a year and, as I found out, has 35 or so business people working on patent licensing and monetization efforts for the organization. So, why would he (let's call him "Bob") need to talk to me these topics? Certainly, there is a veritable army of highly-paid smart people to answer IP and patent questions at his beck and call, and I was interested in finding out what Bob sought to find out from me that he could not get from his own people. I was not surprised to find out that Bob did not want to learn more about buying and selling
A Patent Reality Check: Litigation Not a Viable Revenue Source for Most Inventors
The ability of an intrepid inventor to strike it rich from a great idea seems to be embedded in the DNA of many Americans. Perhaps this view emanates from the presence of patents in the US Constitution, which could create a feeling that US citizens have an "inalienable right" to use patent protection to their advantage. Alternatively, people may perceive the occasional media reports of successful inventors and substantial patent litigation awards as a signal that patents can serve as a path to wealth for those with great ideas (certainly, this is the Hollywood view). In truth, however, getting rich merely from a patent is a rare occurrence--maybe not as low a probability as winning the lottery, but the odds are incredibly long that any person can make money from a patented idea alone. Think about it: if all it took was a patent to make someone wealthy, there would be
“It’s Not You It’s Them” or “They’re Just Not into You”: Why Being an Independent Inventor is Like Dating
The view that a good idea will result in a windfall for an independent inventor seems to be embedded in the fabric of US culture--perhaps it's because the patent system dates from our earliest days. Indeed, a surprisingly large number of people think that getting a patent will result in a large company paying them huge sums of money for the ability to introduce a product covered by that patent. This belief serves to motivate countless numbers of inventors to spend $1000's on patent protection, as well as years of hopeful waiting for their patent to exit the Patent Office. Few ever see their product make it to the marketplace, however. As an attorney at a prestigious IP law firm, I really gave little thought to what my clients would do with their idea once I succeeded in obtaining a patent for them. My job was to help my clients convince the Patent Office that their
Reality Check for Inventors: Most Corporations Will Not Give Your Idea a First Look. Here’s Some Reasons Why.
50% of Venture Capital Investment is Lost: How Your Clients Can Improve These Odds by Using the Right Patent Analytics
THE SKINNY ON THE QUALITY OF VENTURE CAPITAL-RELATED INVESTMENT DECISIONS
If you are a counselor of venture capital firms or entrepreneurs who owning start-up companies that are targets of venture capitalists, you might already be familiar with the high rate of failure associated with such investments. Nonetheless, you may be surprised to find out that 50% of all money invested in venture capital is a loss. This figure, which is based upon separate research projects by a Chicago Graduate School of Business (“GSB”) professor and a former Chief Economist at the Securities and Exchange Commission, indicates that the actual return on venture capital investment is not much different from the average annualized returns on the smallest NASDAQ stocks. In particular, the return on venture capital investment from 1987 to 2001 in these smallest stocks was 62% as compared
Entrepreneurs: Ask 2 Simple Questions to Determine Whether IP Strategy is Critical to Your New Business Venture
Intellectual property ("IP") is often a subject that is "out of sight, out of mind" for entrepreneurs who are launching new business ventures. And, why shouldn't it be: business schools rarely teach much about law in general, let alone about the highly specialized world of IP law. Since non-business school trained entrepreneurs generally take their cues from the methods of their colleagues, it follows that a significant majority of entrepreneurs likely do not consider IP to comprise a necessary step when they are formulating their business plans. My conversations with entrepreneurs from all backgrounds over the years bears this out. When IP does form a fundamental basis of an entrepreneur's new venture, it is likely because scientific or technical subject matter forms the basis of the business. In this context, it makes sense that the scientific or technical core of the business model must be protected by seeking patent coverage. While
