COMMERCIALIZATION OPTIONS FOR A SET OF COMMERCIALIZATION OPTIONS FOR A SET OF WIRELESS PATENTS WIRELESS PATENTS Project Advisor : Prof. Mary Mathew Industry Supervisor: Mr. Mihir Mahajan Shanmukha Sreenivas P , M.MGT II Year Department of Management Studies, IISc
43
Embed
Commercialization Options for a set of Wireless Patents
Given a portfolio of patents, this project utilizes two approaches of study – one is analysis of the portfolio as a whole and the second is specific analysis limited to individual patent assets. This process involves mining for crown jewels in a portfolio, using Patent Analytics. Patent assets thus identified were mapped to a wireless value chain and an innovation value chain to determine preferred commercialization options.
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
COMMERCIALIZATION OPTIONS FOR A SET OF COMMERCIALIZATION OPTIONS FOR A SET OF
Problem StatementProblem Statement To compare a given set of patents to class similar
benchmark patents of the world and suggest commercialization options for a selected set of patents.
4
ObjectivesObjectives1) To compare the given set of wireless patents with the
identified sample of wireless world patents.
2) To identify a benchmark sample of wireless patents in the world, given the patent classes of the given set of wireless patents.
3) To evolve an elimination model to select a sample of patents with higher commercial potential.
4) Suggest commercialization options for the selected set of patents.
Literature ReviewLiterature Review
5
Variable Insights Author
No of US classes Breadth, Extent of core technology diffusion Shapiro (2003)No of IPC classes Breadth, Extent of core technology diffusion Shapiro (2003)
No of InventorsDegree of inventor collaboration, Opposition Survivability
Reitzig (2003), Gibbs (2008)
No of family members Patent value and Market size Gambardella et al. (2008)Patent Grant Lag Degree of Technology Complexity, Patent Value Popp (2003), Retzig (2003)Age Probability of Patent trade, Patent Value Serrano (2008)
Forward citations count Patent Value, Probability of patent trade Serrano (2008)No of claims Patent Value Ughetto (2011)No of words in first claim Scope of Claim, Patent Quality Osenga (2012)No of elements in first claim Scope of Claim, Patent Quality Osenga (2012)
MethodologyMethodology
6
7
Demographic analysis
Patent Bucketing exercise(3 methods)
Three search techniques for potential licensees
Set of 175 Wireless communication patents
World benchmark patents obtained for each bucket.
(n5 = 135)
Selected set of patents(n4 = 135)
Demographic comparison of benchmark and given set of
patents
Discriminant analysis to identify patents similar to benchmark
Commercialization strategy
Shortlist of frequently appearing companies
Cont…
Sampling of world patents from above
companies(n2 = 252);(n3 = 252)
25 Buckets
Patents of high potential
List of potential licensees for each Bucket
8
Given set of patents Sample of world patents
from above
(n2 = 252);(n3= 252) (n1 = 175)
Cont…
Comparison of 2 random samples & given set of patents
Data SetsData SetsGiven Set of Patents (n1= 175)
Two samples of patents from short listed companies of random world sample (n2= 252, n3= 252)
Patents from the given set considered after bucketing (n4= 135)
World benchmark patents obtained for each bucket (n5= 135)
USP class wise analysis of given data setStatus of the applications (awarded v/s filed)Patents by inventor type ( academic v/s non-academic)Patent class by key inventorsAnalysis of familiesDescriptive statistics on :Patent lag and Age Number of Citations – forward and backwardNumber of Foreign FilingsNumber of InventorsNumber of words and elements in the first claim
Search techniques applied on buckets identified…1Search techniques applied on buckets identified…1
20
Ex: Mass ive MIMO IPC Classification based search
Forward & Backward citations based search Keyword based search
Airgo Networks Inc. Alcatel-lucent Alcatel-lucentAtheros Communications, Inc. Deere & Company Broadcom Corporation
Broadcom Corporation Ems Technologies, Inc.Electronics And Telecommunications Research Institute
Electronics And Telecommunications Research Institute Fujitsu Limited Fujitsu LimitedFujitsu Limited General Telecommunications Institute Huawei Technologies Co., Ltd.Hitachi, Ltd. Google Inc. Intel CorporationIntel Corporation Htc Corporation Interdigital, Inc.Interdigital, Inc. Ikanos Communications, Inc. Koninklijke Philips Electronics NvLg Corp. Intel Corporation Lg Corp.Marvell Technology Group Ltd. Kathrein-werke Kg Mimos, BerhadNippon Telegraph & Telephone Corp. Microsoft Corporation Nec CorporationPanasonic Corporation Motorola Solutions Inc Nippon Telegraph & Telephone Corp.Qualcomm, Inc. Nokia Corporation Nokia CorporationSony Corporation Qualcomm, Inc. Panasonic CorporationSharp Corporation Rockwell Collins, Inc. Qualcomm, Inc.Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.Telefonaktiebolaget Lm Ericsson Toshiba Corporation Sony CorporationToshiba Corporation Unwired Planet Inc Telefonaktiebolaget Lm EricssonWionics Res Xr Communications, Llc Zte Corporation
21
Potent ia l l i censees - Mass ive MIMO Airgo Networks Inc.Atheros Communications, Inc.Deere & CompanyEms Technologies, Inc.Ikanos Communications, Inc.Kathrein-werke KgMarvell Technology Group Ltd.Mimos, BerhadRockwell Collins, Inc.Unwired Planet IncWionics ResXr Communications, Llc
AppleBroadcomCisco SystemsFujitsu LimitedHuaweiKoninklijke Philips ElectronicsLG ElectronicsMotorola Mobility (acquired by Google)NEC corporationNokia corporationQualcommResearch in Motion (Blackberry)Samsung ElectronicsZTE corporation
Potent ia l l i censees for the port fo l io
Search techniques applied on buckets identified…2Search techniques applied on buckets identified…2
No of IPC classes 1.57 3.29 2.98 21.934** -6.54** -6.25** 1.14
No of Inventors 1.67 2.88 2.79 32.75** -7.95** -7.68** 0.558
No of family members 1.96 5.52988 4.438247 53.29** 10.343** -8.872** 1.553
Patent Grant Lag 1128.46 1507.12 1582.15 10.58** 3.872** -5.122** -0.95
Backward Citations Count
6.31 29.27 20.75 29.889** -7.81** -6.085** 2.744*
Forward Citations Count
0.57 2.69 3.02 17.551** -5.377** -6.266** -0.71
No of words in first claim 209.5 158.5 171.89 7.27** 3.6223* 2.49* -1.566
No of claims 22.01 22.12 21.33 0.269 -0.09 0.59 0.615
No of elements in first claim
4.3571 4.4936 4.6107 0.23 0.387 0.626 0.402
No of US classes 2.53 2.92 3.04 2.167 -1.62 -1.962 -0.493
Significance level: * for 0.05, ** for 0.01
Discrimination of given set ( nn44) and world benchmark (nn55) to identify commercially potential patents in the given set
Data input to the LDA modelData input to the LDA model
25
Category-Buckets No. of patents from given set
No. of world benchmark
patents considered
Telecommunications Software 30 30Digital Image Processing 5 5Quality of Service 7 7Security 13 13Data Management 5 5
Similarly, we extracted data for all the remaining buckets
Variables chosen for analysis - LDAVariables chosen for analysis - LDA
26
Forward Citations Count
V01
Backward Citations Count
V02
No of US classes V03No of IPC classes V04No of Inventors V05No of family members V06Patent Grant Lag V07No of claims V08Strength V09Age V10No of words in first claim
V11
No of elements in first claim
V12
{0, if patent belongs to benchmark set1, if patent belongs to given set
The class variable =
27
Comparison of means between the two groupsComparison of means between the two groups
Mean of Given Set(1)
Mean of Benchmark Set(2)
t12 statistic
Forward Citations Count 0.6 5.8 -10.79**
Backward Citations Count 5.95 19.26 4.59**
No of IPC classes 1.52 1.94 -2.98*No of Inventors 1.64 3.23 -8.12**
No of family members 1.61 2.93 6.086**
Patent Grant Lag 708.86 848.32 -2.602*No of claims 22.33 32.83 6.733**
Comparative Analysis with sold Comparative Analysis with sold patentspatentsShortlisted patents of given set – 10Ocean Tomo Auctioned Patents – 10Sample of benchmark patents – 10Sample of patents from given set – 10
33
34
Comparative AnalysisComparative Analysis
(days)
35Source : “Value network dynamics in 3G–4G wireless communications: A systems thinking approach to strategic value assessment” Pagani, 2008
Suggested positioning in –Suggested positioning in – Wireless Value Chain Wireless Value Chainfor the shortlisted patents for the shortlisted patents of given setof given set
P1P1 P2P2
P3P3
P4P4
P5P5
P6P6 P7P7
P8P8
P9P9
P10P10
P8P8
P9P9P7P7
Suggested positioning in –Suggested positioning in –Innovation Value Chain Innovation Value Chain for the shortlisted patents of given setfor the shortlisted patents of given set
36Source : Innovation Value Chain , Hansen (2007)
P2P2P3P3P4P4 P5P5 P6P6 P7P7
P8P8 P9P9
P10P10
P1P1
Rationale for commercialization Rationale for commercialization optionsoptionsCommercialization options available are : New product development investments:
Valid if the patent is a concept suitable to enter the device development stage.
License the patent/s : Valid if a potential licensee keen to work further on the patent and based on a mutually agreed royalty model.
Sell out of the patent/s: Selling a patent may not be substantial unless the product has been on the market for a long time. The patent buyer usually won't want to spend a lot for an unproven product that might not generate a big profits.
Initiate a startup: Valid if the patent is at that stage where it can be manifested into a service or product for a customer and revenues are in sight within 6 months. It should also have a willing entrepreneur keen to take it out.
Cross Licensing: Usually, this type of agreement happens between two parties in order to avoid litigation or to settle an infringement dispute. Very often, the patents that each party owns covers different essential aspects of a given commercial product.
37Source: Shapiro, Carl, “Navigating the Patent Thicket: Cross Licenses, Patent Pools, and Standard Setting )”,2010
Suggested commercialization options for Suggested commercialization options for the shortlisted Patents/Patent Applicationsthe shortlisted Patents/Patent Applications
ConclusionsConclusionsObjectives1) To compare the given set of wireless
patents with the identified sample of world wireless patents.
2) To identify a benchmark sample of wireless patents in the world, given the patent classes of the given set of wireless patents.
3) To evolve an elimination model to select a sample of patents with higher commercial potential.
4) Suggest commercialization options for the selected set of patents.
Results1) Analyzed the gap between the given set of
wireless patents with the identified sample of world wireless patents based on Patent Latent Variables.
2) Identified benchmark patents of 14 companies shortlisted on applying search techniques on the buckets identified.
3) Used Linear Discriminant Analysis to identify the patents with higher commercial potential.
4) Positioned the shortlisted patents on the Wireless Value Chain and on the Innovation Value Chain and suggested commercialization options.
39
41
Bibliography…1Bibliography…1 Aronoff, R. (2013). Use it or lose it: monetize patents while others still need them. Intellectual Asset
Management2, 57, 39–45.
Bekkers, R., & Nuvolari, A. (2011) .Economics of information systems and policies, 1001–1015.
Berkowitz, L. (1993). Getting the most from your patents. Research Technology Management, Volume 32, Issue 2, pp. 26.
Bessen, J. (2008). The value of U.S. patents by owner and patent characteristics. Research Policy, 37(5), 932–945. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2008.02.005
Bessen, J., & Maskin, E. (2009). Sequential innovation, patents and imitation , 40(4), 611–635.
Bilir, L. K. (2011). Patent Laws , Product Lifecycle Lengths , and the Global Sourcing Decisions of U.S. Multinationals.
Calderini, M., Caviggioli, F., Franzoni, C., & Ughetto, E. (2011). Study on the quality of the patent system in Europe Tender MARKT / 2009 / 11 / D Contract Notice in the Official Journal of the European March 2011 Disclaims :, (March), 1–194.
Chesbrough, H. (2006). Open Innovation : A New Paradigm for Understanding Industrial Innovation.
Cohen, W. M., Goto, A., Nagata, A., Nelson, R. R., & Walsh, J. P. (2002).R & D spillovers, patents and the incentives to innovate in Japan and the United States, 31, 1349–1367.
Cotropia, C. A., Lemley, M., & Neukom, W. H. (2012). Do Applicant Patent citations matter? , 600 W 168, 1–44.
Dahlman, E., Furuskär, A., Jading, Y., Lindström, M., & Parkvall, S. (2008). Key features of the LTE radio interface, 77–80.
Ewing, T., & Feldman, R. (2012). The Giants Among Us. Stanford Technology Law Review, (expected).
Wanetick, D. (2012). Strategies for Negotiating Licenses, 1–16.
Wirtz, B. W. (2001). Reconfiguration of Value Chains in Converging Media and Communications Markets, 34, 489–506.
42
Bibliography…2Bibliography…2 Gambardella, A., Harhoff, D., & Verspagen, B. (2008). The value of European patents, (2006), 69–84.
Gans, J. S., & Stern, S. (2003). The product market and the market for “ideas”: commercialization strategies for technology entrepreneurs, 32, 333–350.
Gassmann, O., & Zedtwitz, M. Von. (1999). New concepts and trends in international R & D organizations.
Gibbs, A. (2008). Explanation of PatentCafe ® Patent Factor Index TM Reports ( PFI ) The Practical Application of Statistical Quality Scoring to Effective Patent Management PATENT QUALITY IMPACT FOLLOWING KSR V .
Hall, B. H., Jaffe, A., & Trajtenberg, M. (2005). Market value and patent citations, 1–50.
Harhoff, D., Scherer, F. M., & Vopel, K. (2003). Citations, family size, opposition and the value of patent rights. Research Policy, 32(8), 1343–1363. doi:10.1016/S0048-7333(02)00124-5
Hoydis, J. (2011). Massive MIMO : How many antennas do we need ?
http://www.innography.com. Innography- Intellectual Property Business Intelligence Solution. Accessed on January 10, 2013.
http://www.relecura.com. Reclecura- Patent and Portfolio Analysis Platform. Accessed on April 30, 2013.
http://www.uspto.gov. United States Patent and Trademark Office. Accessed on January 10, 2013.
IBM Corp. 2011. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows .(Version 20.0.) [Software] Armonk, NY: IBM Corp.
Kayal, a. a., & Waters, R. C. (1999). An empirical evaluation of the technology cycle time indicator as a measure of the pace of technological progress in superconductor technology. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management, 46(2), 127–131. doi:10.1109/17.759138
Li, F., & Whalley, J. (2002). Deconstruction of the telecommunications industry : From value chains to value networks, 26, 451–472.
Maitland, C. F., Bauer, J. M., & Westerveld, R. (2002). The European market for mobile data : evolving value chains and industry structures, 26, 485–504.
Misek, P. (2011). Research in Motion (RIMM) (pp. 1–12). Retrieved from http://ipcloseup.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/rimm.pdf
Olla, P., & Patel, N. V. (2002). A value chain model for mobile data service providers, 26, 551–571.
Osenga, K. (2012). The Shape of Things to Come : What We Can Learn From Patent Claim Length, 28(3).
Bibliography…3Bibliography…3 Pagani, M., & Fine, C. H. (2008). Value network dynamics in 3G–4G wireless communications: A systems
thinking approach to strategic value assessment. Journal of Business Research, 61(11), 1102–1112. doi:10.1016/j.jbusres.2007.11.004
Peppard, J., & Rylander, A. (2006). From Value Chain to Value Network: European Management Journal, 24(2-3), 128–141. doi:10.1016/j.emj.2006.03.003
Pham, A. (2011). Strategic Portfolio-based patent investment and management. Intellectual Asset Management, 45.
R Development Core Team. 2013 R: A language and environment for statistical computing. (Version 3.0.1) [Software] R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. Available from http://www.R-project.org.
Reitzig, M. (2004). Improving patent valuations for management purposes—validating new indicators by analyzing application rationales. Research Policy, 33(6-7), 939–957. doi:10.1016/j.respol.2004.02.004
Sabat, H. K. (2002). The evolving mobile wireless value chain and market structure, 26, 505–535.
Schankerman, M. (1985). “Estimates of the value of patent rights in European countries during the Post – 1950 period”. Economic Journal. Vol.97 . pp.1-25.
Serrano, C. J., Holmes, T., Kortum, S., Aguirregabiria, V., Eckstein, Z., Ge, S., Leon, F. G. De, et al. (2013). Estimating the Gains from Trade in the Market for Patent Rights This draft : January , 2013, 25–27.
Shadunsky, A. (2012). Nokia Patent Portfolio Valuation. Retrieved February 4, 2013, from http://seekingalpha.com/article/688381-nokia-patent-portfolio-valuation-range-too-great-to-make-nokia-a-compelling-buy
Shapiro, C. (2001). Antitrust Limits to Patent Settlements, (1998), 1–42.
Somaya, D., Teece, D., & Wakeman, S. (2011). Innovation in Multi-Invention Contexts:, 53(4), 47–79.
Sreekumaran, S., Mathew, M., & Nag, D. (2011). Technovation Dynamics between patent latent variables and patent price. Technovation, 31(12), 648–654. doi:10.1016/j.technovation.2011.07.002
Straathof, B., & Veldhuizen, S. Van. (2010). Market size, institutions, and the value of rights provided by patents.
Talluri, S., Baker, R. C., & Sarkis, J. (1999). A framework for designing efficient value chain networks, 62.
USPTO. 2012 U.S. Patent Statistics Report 2012. http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/ac/ido/oeip/taf/us_stat.pdf