Many people feel that
estimating the value of a patent is like estimating the value a lottery
ticket. In essence you are trying to
determine if the ticket is a winner. These
people make the point that, like lottery tickets, the statistical distribution
of patent values is highly skewed. And
they are right. Once you dig into the
details of the PatVal-Eu survey you find that the top 1.5% of patents
represented about half of all patent value.
In the end though, I don’t
buy the argument. Techniques exist to
value the cash flow, price premiums and cost savings that accrue from patents
and patent owners would know the information required to use them. And even if half the value is tied up in the
top, the other half is still a lot of money.
And the probability of
winning the lottery is a whole lot less than 1.5%
But it would be nice to have
some external indication of patent’s value.
This is the question addressed in Citations, Family
Size, Opposition and the Value of Patents by Harhoff, Scherer and Vopel. In a study of 11,471 German patents, the
authors build a model of patent value using publicly available information
about the patents. The study concluded that
the following factors could be used to predict patent value.
Forward and Backward Patent
Citations: The concept of forward and
backward citation is a commonly used, deeply ingrained and spectacularly
confusing way to refer to documents that cite other documents. Forward simply means the patent (or document)
was cited. Backward means the patent
made the citation. What the Hardoff
study found was that the number of forward and the number of backward patent
citations both indicated higher probable patent values.
Backward Non-Patent
Literature Citations: The more
references a patent made to Non-Patent Literature (usually journal articles)
the higher the probable patent value.
Number of Jurisdictions: If the same invention is patented in multiple
countries (jurisdictions) this is an indication of higher patent value.
Surviving the Opposition
Procedure: The German Patent Office
provides for a process called opposition.
Under the opposition procedure, anybody can oppose the validity of the
patent grant within three months of the date of the grant. The Patent Office would then review the
arguments for opposition and reestablish their grounds for issuing the patent
grant. In the survey, about 8% of patents
faced opposition and about 14% of oppositions were successful. Surviving an opposition proceeding indicated
a higher probable patent value.
Of the above factors,
Surviving Opposition and Forward Patent Citations were the most important
factors. While the Number of
Jurisdictions, Backward Patent Citations and NPL citations were less important,
their appeal is that this information is available immediately after a patent
is issued.
A couple of other items to
note were:
As a result of the America
Invents Acts of 2011, the US Patent and Trademark Office has implemented
opposition procedures analogous to the German procedures. These are called Post Grant Review and Inter
Partes Review.
The article also provided
some insight into what the authors call sleeping patents. These are patent that are held by companies
that are not used or licensed for commercial purposes. This concept is at the heart of the many
“patent troll” arguments going on today.
The authors argue that while there is no direct value in a “sleeping
patent,” there is significant indirect value.
For example, a company may own patents to two different technologies
that produce similar product improvements.
In this example, the company would select one technology to implement
the improvement but continue to maintain the other patent to protect against
competitors using the alternate technology to make the same improvement. While this seems like a minor point, 1/3 of
the companies in the survey used this strategy.
Below is a summary of
selected patents that have been recently issued in textile related
classification codes:
Head
guard: A head guard with a fabric layer
and a padding layer. The head guard can be worn by a wearer in combination with
a helmet. Patent #: 8613114. Inventor:
Velasco. Assignee: 2nd Skull, LLC.
Article
of footwear incorporating foam-filled elements and methods for manufacturing
the foam-filled elements: A shoe with a
sole structure multiple support elements made of a shell with an empty core.
The core is filled with polymer foam material of at least two of the support
elements may have different densities.
Patent #: 8613122. Hazenberg and Schindler. Nike, Inc.
Footwear
device: This is a device mounted in a
shoe, or worn as a sock, that biases the ankle of the wearer to improve
athletic performance. Patent #: 8613150. Inventor:
Wong. Assignee: Wong.
Stitched
multiaxial non-crimp fabrics: A
multiaxial non-crimp fabric comprising at least two superimposed layers of
multifilament reinforcing yarns arranged within the layers parallel to each
other and abutting parallel together. The reinforcing yarns within one layer as
well as adjacent layers are connected and secured against each other by sewing.
The reinforcing yarns of the layers are symmetrically arranged in respect to
the zero-degree direction of the non-crimp fabric and form an angle α to the
zero-degree direction, the angle not being equal to 90° or 0°. The sewing
threads have a linear density from 10 to 35 dtex. Patent:
8613257. Inventor:
Wockatz. Assignee: Toho Tenax Europe Gmbh.
Cellulose
fibre based insulation material: An
inexpensive and voluminous fiber product is achieved having good spring elastic
properties as well as good sound and heat insulating properties. The composition is 50% to 90% cellulose
fibers, 2% to 20% synthetic fibers, and 2% to 20% bi-component fibers
comprising a core and an outer sheathing, said outer sheathing having a lower
melting point than the core. Patent #: 8614154. Inventor:
Anderson. Assignee: 3M Innovative Properties Company
Textile
fabric for the outer shell of a firefighter's garment: A textile fabric for use as the outer shell
fabric of a firefighter's garment. The fabric is made of spun yarns and
multi-filament yarns made of a combination of aramid, PBI or PBO or melamine
formaldehyde staples. Patent #: 8614156. Inventor:
Hess, et.al. Assignee: PBI Performance Products, Inc.
Jim Carson is a principal of
RB Consulting, Inc. and a registered patent agent. He has over 30 years of experience across
multiple industries including the biotechnology, textile, computer,
telecommunications, and energy sectors.
RB Consulting, Inc. specializes in providing management, prototyping,
and regulatory services to small and start-up businesses. He can be reached via email at James.Carson.Jr@gmail.com or by
phone at (803) 792-2183.
No comments:
Post a Comment