Posts in Licensing

Biased Findings on Patent Licensing Belie Clear Empirical Evidence

They found that citations were elevated for licensed patents. Moreover, most citations occurred after the patent was licensed. That licensing of patented technology increases its diffusion and relevance more broadly is supported by Drivas et al. (2014), who found that citations by non–licensees to patents exclusively licensed (either by geographic area or field of use) by the University of California increased after the licenses were executed. These are objective empirical indicia – not subjective responses of accused infringers to selective surveys.

Flawed survey erroneously concludes patent licensing does not contribute to innovation

There are a variety of problems with this paper, the conclusions reached and the methodology. Perhaps the largest problem is that Professors Feldman and Lemley rely on subjective evidence rather than volumes of objective evidence that contradict the self-serving responses from those who are licensing rights they are already infringing. What else would you suspect from a homogenous subset of individuals who collectively don’t like the patent system very much? Collective bias seems a far more likely answer as to why there is “near unanimity,” as the Professors claim. Even so, how is it possible that any group could ever achieve near unanimity about anything? The fact that there was near unanimity demands one to question whether there is a bias or flaw in the survey, yet no such inquiry seems to have been made.

University of Wisconsin Celebrates 90 Years of Innovation Excellence

For the past 90 years WARF has promoted scientific research and innovation at UW-Madison and has earned more than $800 million in patent royalty revenues over the years and has generated $1.25 billion in revenue for the institution. WARF’s success spans well beyond the critical role Bremer played in the enactment of Bayh-Dole, and can be seen in how the University of Wisconsin-Madison stacks up against research universities from across the world. In 2013, UW-Madison placed 6th globally among all universities receiving U.S. patents that year with 160 patents; prostate cancer vaccines, clean compression engines and prosthetic device control were among the technologies protected.

Licensing standards and best practices separate good behavior from bad

LES is focused on licensing standards, which will also define best practices to separate patent owners with good behavior from bad behaviors. The committees also contemplate establishing template documents for transactions. The overall idea is that these standards, best practices, and template documents will become the foundation for an accreditation process. And so, yes, we absolutely encourage anyone to join the discussion as it’s being framed now but all participants need to recognize that to meet the standards and accreditation requirements you are going to be accountable yourself to the standards that are defined by these programs.

Patent Properties launches patent licensing subscription service

At the heart of the Patent Utility is an advanced semantic search engine that identifies the technologies that are relevant to any individual business or entity. The analytical processes behind the semantic search engine will capture text-based information about a company both from publicly available sources and the company itself. This information will typically include product specifications, description of core technologies, identification of key competitors, and research and development priorities. The information is then processed and analyzed against the entire active U.S. patent database, which currently stands at 2.3 million patents and millions of pending applications. The process cross-references the company’s products, components, services, materials, methods and processes with specific patents and claims in the U.S. patent database. The more closely the patent claims relate to a company’s information, the more relevant the patent containing those claims is.

An Exclusive Interview with Robert Litan

LITAN: ”Cross industry variation in the use of patents shouldn’t mean that we should just junk the patent system. As I said, the alternatives to go to a system of trade secrets which has very, I think, suboptimal social implications relative to patents. Indeed I think when people object to patents they don’t think about well what else would firms rely on for protecting their hard-earned IP. Indeed, even companies that are heavily involved in the open source world are using patents as a ‘currency’ through which they can achieve collaboration with other firms. That’s why you see big firms like Microsoft and IBM cross license. They do it not only to insulate themselves from infringements against them but because patents are the tickets through which can collaborate with other parties to innovate, make better products and so on.”

$200 Billion Could Be Added to Economic Output Annually by Unlocking Patents

Most patent owners and users cannot bear the costs or risks associated with enforcing and licensing their patents. The potential cost of this waste to the American economy has been estimated to be as large as $1 trillion annually, representing a five percent reduction in potential GDP… using conservative assumptions of the impact on the economy of increased innovation, could generate social benefits ranging between $100 and $200 billion per year. This estimated range easily could be surpassed if the U.S. can achieve enhanced licensing of existing patents, and if any market solutions also enable the dissemination of more knowledge that could increase the numbers of patented innovations themselves.

Can New Patent Monetization Models Save American Innovators?

It has been several generations since Congress has enacted changes to the patent laws that gave greater rights to innovators, the Supreme Court today is reminiscent of Courts in the past that had never seen a patent that contained valid claims, and the Federal Circuit is infatuated with de novo review and willingness to rubber stamp invalidity decisions parroting the Supreme Court’s intellectually dishonest and logically inconsistent tests. In the wake of all of this uncertainty and outright vilification of inventors and the patent system, there are some in the licensing and monetization industry who are trying to bring meaningful financial innovations to the fore. For the foreseeable future, given the reality of a completely dysfunctional federal government and judges more interested in being legislators, we can hope that thought leaders with new patent monetization models can provide a solution that will keep innovators inventing and society benefitting from the fruits of their labors.

Extortionist Demand Letters are Wrecking Public Confidence in the U.S. Patent System

The greatest long-term threat to the U.S. patent system does not come from its professional opponents – those large businesses and their political allies who stand to profit from enfeebled patent rights. A deeper harm is caused by unscrupulous patent trolls who use extortionist “demand letters” to victimize small businesses. Yet even as damage caused by demand letters spreads, most legitimate patent licensors whose businesses depend upon continued legislative and public trust stand idly by, doing little or nothing to address it. Well-insulated within the patent industry’s cozy professional bubble, we are, in effect, fiddling like a modern-day Nero while innovation’s Rome burns.

Ethical Licensing vs. Bad Practices Damaging the Industry

Acknowledging that many of the problems facing the licensing industry was brought about due to bad actors dominating the discussion, Shaer explained that the absence of legitimate patent owners who license real technologies from the debate has also contributed. Rather than self regulating the industry, legitimate patent owners and licensing entities have stayed in the background, which continues to contribute to the negative public perception of the patent system. “We are the first licensing company, to our knowledge, to publicly campaign against patent troll demand letters that we believe are undermining public confidence in the patent system,” Shaer explained.

InventionHome Extends Deadline to Submit Inventions for DRTV Summit

The DRTV Product Summit is a one-day event that will be held on Wednesday, October 22, 2014 at Robert Morris University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Inventors will be given the opportunity to pitch their products to representatives of the six (6) DRTV companies on one day in one location. The event is not open to all inventors. Over the past few years the event has grown and there has been significant interest in the inventor community. In order to be considered inventors must submit their inventions to be reviewed by a panel of referees. Thanks to an extended deadline, submissions are now due no later than Friday, October 3, 2014.

Eternal Vigilance is the Price of Bayh-Dole

Debates over economic fairness, the appropriate role of government in the economy and the value of the patent system spill over into our world. One factor that made the enactment of Bayh-Dole so difficult was the feeling in the 60’s and 70’s that patents were inherently bad. Intellectual property used to fall under the Senate Subcommittee on Antitrust and Monopolies when I joined the Judiciary Committee staff– which says much on how patents were viewed. It took the wakeup call of losing our traditional lead in innovation to Japan and Germany to start reversing this trend.

Call for Inventions for DRTV Product Summit Presented by InventionHome

While the DRTV Product Summit is geared toward inventors with largely plug and play products, it is still nevertheless aimed at giving everyday inventors an opportunity. The major benefit to inventors selected is that they can present to serious companies that are looking for new products in one day in one location. The deadline for submissions has to be weeks in advance of the event so that proper time can be spent vetting the inventions and inviting the inventors. No guarantee of consideration can be extended to those who submit after September 30, 2014.

A Passionate Fight Against Breast Cancer

She thought about a new approach to get these patents off the shelf: launching an international competition for teams to develop business plans for a start-up company around some of the most promising inventions… Eleven new companies have already been formed, five have completed their licensing negotiations with NIH, most of the new companies have secured venture funding, several have letters of intent from large drug companies and one team landed an additional $700K after winning a separate business plan competition.

Getting Your Invention to Market: Licensing vs. Manufacturing

Of course, whether you are going to pursue licensing or manufacturing, for the first lesson is to realize that there are no tricks to invention marketing. It just takes work. Of course, you need to first determine what it is that you want to accomplish with your invention, which should be covered in some form of patent pending prior to beginning commercialization efforts. But once you have determined which path to follow you just need to focus your efforts and attention to identifying opportunities, pursuing them and not taking no for an answer. Certainly, there may be a time that you will have to retreat and move on, but those who succeed by and large share the same quality of determination. Determination is critical.