Bridging The Information Gap Through Information Sharing
GTT Blog
Sharing information has never been easier with so many platforms on which to exchange thoughts and ideas. Please check back often to see the latest developments regarding intellectual property and general patent news. Authors will include our CEO, Michael Lubitz, various team members and local experts. If you have any questions or comments, please contact GTT.
Current Blog
Fundamental Electronic Marketplace Patent Portfolio
GTT commenced marketing an essential patent portfolio related to electronic commerce. The invention describes an e-commerce solution that incorporates remote data access and product catalog templates into an on-demand electronic marketplace tool. These solutions are also known as SaaS, or Software-as-a-Service.
The broad applicability of these patents to electronic marketplace platforms makes this a very attractive acquisition opportunity.
If you would like to receive material about the “Electronic Marketplace Patent,” please contact Andrew Godsey at: agodsey@gttgrp.com.
10/26/2009
Interactive Voice Response Portfolio
Portfolio Available!
GTT announces the availability of a fundamental patent asset in the Interactive Voice Response (IVR) space. The patented technology comprises an essential element within call-based authentication systems. The invention details a method by which a provider is able to manage subscriber access to a fee-based service and is used in many interactive voice response (IVR) platforms. GTT has uncovered substantial use of this patented technology in the IVR and customer service provider segments.
Automated call and authentication systems are a vital element of many customer service programs. This patent covers technologies that enable access to restricted content by verifying a subscriber’s qualifying information. In one embodiment, the subscriber qualifies for the restricted service by entering credit card information. The 1995 priority date places this patent well ahead of other industry inventions.
“We are pleased to be able to offer this select asset acquisition opportunity,” states Michael Lubitz, CEO and Chairman of GTT.
GTT is currently entertaining acquisition offers. To receive additional information regarding this opportunity, please contact Dan Buri at dburi@gttgrp.com. All inquiries will be kept strictly confidential.
9/30/2009
Patent Valuation – Quantitative Approaches
Andrew Godsey, VP Sales
Microsoft’s corporate VP of Intellectual Property Group, Horacio Gutierrez, recently announced that Microsoft is building a patent valuation tool. A recent article in IDG Connect highlights an interview with Gutierrez in which he reveals that the inspiration to build a patent pricing model came from reading the book “Moneyball.” (Moneyball outlines the approach of Oakland A’s GM Billy Beane that is now infamous in the world of baseball. Beane has used a quantitative approach, rather than the historically accepted qualitative approach, to analyzing baseball players in order to get the most bang for his buck under a limited operating budget). As Guitierrez explains in the interview:
“While everybody was going through the discussion of talent selection the way they traditionally do it, which was with the old scouts who’ve been around the business for 50 years or so, saying ‘This kid’s got a good arm,’ ‘He looks like a ballplayer,’ and ‘He’s got a cannon,’ and all of these qualitative things, they started to have people come in and start to crunch numbers and realized that a lot of the things they were measuring, and taking as measures of success, were the wrong things”
He goes on to say:
“They came up with a whole different framework and started to come in and acquire a number of players that were under-appreciated by everybody else, but based on the metrics that, according to them, mattered, they were incredibly valuable. So, for many years the Oakland A’s have been able to have a fraction of the budget of the Yankees and yet consistently make it to the playoffs, which the Yankees can’t do,”
Moneyball is all about improving the previous way of analyzing baseball players by focusing on statistics that more accurately assess any given ballplayer’s value over another potential prospect. Likewise, patent valuation tools should move beyond standard approaches in order to get a more accurate understanding of a patent’s actual value. The apparent intention behind Microsoft’s new valuation tool is to reach this goal, assisting Microsoft’s managers in accurately assessing best steps when considering alternate IP defense strategies.
Patent Valuation software tools certainly are not a new concept. (GTT has been using one internally since its inception and began offering it as a service for our clients’ benefit over 5 years ago). Many patent valuation tools available offer simple analysis with few variables. Most don’t afford estimated value ranges for the patent, but rather provide ambiguous patent scores that are difficult to translate into information useful for making necessary business decisions. In the IDG Connect article, Gutierrez references forward citations, backward citations and applicable market revenue as key metrics to define the quality of a patent portfolio. These metrics certainly are important, but additional relevant metrics must be taken into account in order to provide accurate information IP managers need to make critical decisions.
GTT’s Quantitative Valuation Tool has always led the way by providing our clients with insight into their portfolio by confirming high value assets and uncovering additional monetization opportunities, including a probable transaction value range. GTT’s Quant is powered by our Transaction History Database. Drawing on hundreds of patent transactions recorded over the prior ten (10) years and constantly updated to reflect current market trends, GTT’s quantitative assessment analyzes key patent metrics and links them to real-world transactions through regression analysis.
Understanding how a patent compares to another patent is interesting. In fact, it can be helpful in improving the understanding of your portfolio’s value, much like there is real significance in a scout’s assessment of a young pitcher’s arm being a “cannon.” Ultimately, however, quantitative assessment is no substitute for a comprehensive analysis of select high value assets that are driving the particular business decision.
9/29/2009
Removing Speculation from Patent Valuation
Dan Buri, JD
Over the past few months, GTT has fielded countless inquiries from CEOs, CFOs and CIPOs wondering what the value of their patents might be. Some have asked for valuation guidance regarding the sale of specific patents in the current market. Others have simply presented GTT with their patent portfolios to determine or gain a third party opinion as to value and to uncover monetization opportunities. Simply put, they ask us, “What’s it worth?”
GTT’s patent asset services consist of patent brokerage, patent acquisition, patent valuation, patent-leveraged M&A, alternative financing options, and licensing support. Our clients have included career inventors, entrepreneurs, small-cap companies and Global 50 Corporations. We regularly consult with the world’s leading technology companies on a variety of matters ranging from patent asset divestment strategies to strategic initiatives. At the heart of all these services, however, is patent valuation. While many refer to GTT as a patent brokerage, in reality we are a patent valuation firm that has a very successful best in class patent brokerage arm. There is a reason executives continue to come back to GTT with their patent valuation needs. Our valuation capabilities are of the highest quality.
GTT’s patent valuation expertise began when Michael Lubitz first started our IP transaction history database over a decade ago. From day one, GTT has used that data to identify common characteristics in valuable patents, going far beyond the relatively simple “forward citation valuation models” of the time. Starting in 2004, GTT began offering our clients valuation services, including access to our internal valuation tools and methodologies, and it has become an advisory cornerstone.
GTT offers a range of valuation services. The cost-effective quantitative valuation, which utilizes GTT’s proprietary database, is an efficient tool our clients use to gain insight into their patent asset holdings. The quantitative assessment identifies and confirms high value assets within a portfolio, providing an value indicator as well as a value range. For select assets that exhibit high value potential, GTT offers its comprehensive valuation. The comprehensive valuation includes prosecution history review, external prior art analysis, evidence of use determination, and best use strategies. The final valuation decision represents a consensus opinion from several GTT analysts. The consensus opinion is especially important, as it tends to reflect actual market variables. Ultimately, GTT’s valuation engagements are always tailored to the specific needs of each individual client, which allows the client to receive the information that puts them in the best position to make difficult IP decisions.
Valuing intellectual property assets is speculative, and patents assets are no different. Ultimately, however, GTT’s patent valuation service removes a significant degree of the speculation associated with patent asset-based business decisions.
7/27/2009
Andrew Godsey, VP Sales
IBM led the list of companies that received patents in 2008 for the 16th year in a row. IBM received 4,186 patents in 2008 which makes it the first company to receive 4,000 patents in a year according to IFI Patent Intelligence.
The total number of patents issued in 2008 was 157,774. With IBM leading the pack, the other top ten include Samsung (3,515), Canon (2,114), Microsoft (2,030), Intel (1,776), Matsushita (1,745), Toshiba (1,609), Fujitsu (1,494), Sony (1,485) and HP (1,424).
It will be interesting to see the total number of patents issued in the future with firms like HP and IBM saying they will focus on patent quality over quantity. The USPTO saw a 6% increase in patent applications to 466,147 in 2008 so it is hard to imagine the total number of patents being issued per year going down anytime soon.
Click here to see the IFI press release.
1/15/2009
Dan Buri, JD
As the economic downturn continues, individual households have been forced to forego planned expenditures. It has been no different for businesses. Many companies have found themselves in similar new budget realities. Budget cuts and layoffs have become a common theme recently in the business world. For many companies, reducing patent maintenance fees is a less obvious way of decreasing expenses.
For those companies qualifying for small entity status, the maintenance fee schedule for a patent issuing today will run about $4,000 for a single patent–$490 at 3.5 years, $1240 at 7.5 years, and $2,055 at 11.5 years. Few organizations, however, have the small entity luxury of discounted patent fees. The standard maintenance fee for a patent issuing today is more than $7,500 over the life of the patent–$980 at 3.5 years, $2,480 at 7.5 years, and $4,110 at 11.5 years. With many experts estimating that between 10 to 35 percent of any company’s patent portfolio is non-core, the maintenance fee savings can be significant. In fact, if you take into account foreign filings, maintenance fees can account for 2/3 of a patent’s overall cost.
While your company is looking at budget cuts, it may make sense to review the patents on which you are currently paying maintenance fees. You may find patents that are not core to your business—and letting them expire can save you considerable funds. Alternatively, you may find that your non-core patents hold significant value for another company. In this case, a patent sale may be a valuable option. A simple patent house cleaning could not only end up saving a significant amount of money in maintenance fees for your company, but may even bring in important unexpected revenue.
11/13/2008
Flash of Genius: Lessons Learned from Robert Kearns
Andrew Godsey, VP Sales
I am consistently impressed with the modern-day inventors GTT represents. While GTT’s patent brokerage clients are generally large or mid-size companies, a significant portion of GTT’s clientele represent the classic inventor. These inventors immediately came to mind as “Flash of Genius”, the story of Robert Kearns, was released in movie theaters last month.
Robert Kearns was the inventor of intermittent windshield wipers (patent numbers: 3,351,836; 3,602,790 and 4,544,870). After an unsuccessful attempt to license the technology to the “Big Three”, Kearns went on to sue Ford and Chrysler for patent infringement. The case eventually ended up being reviewed by the Supreme Court. Kearn’s uphill legal battle lasted from 1978 to 1995 and cost him approximately $10M in legal fees but eventually netted him around $30M in damages.
There are a few thoughts I take away from the story of Robert Kearns:
There is a market now that wasn’t there 40, 20, or even 10 years ago. Transferring patents has become incredibly common. Most major corporations have staff and processes in place dedicated to reviewing intellectual property acquisitions. Were Robert Kearns around today, he would have many more options available to him that could have alleviated some of the costs associated with his battle against Ford and Chrysler. Which leads me to a second thought….
If Kearns would have known that his litigation would last nearly 20 years, cost $10M and take the toll on his professional/personal life that it did, would he have still chosen to litigate?
How would Kearns’ case have held up in light of KSR (KSR v. Teleflex)? Given that the primary legal defense against Kearns in the Ford case was that his patent was obvious, would the verdict have changed today?
Every day GTT advises its inventor clientele on the best path forward and gives solid advice on likely monetization outcomes regarding their patent assets.
11/2/2008
Dan Buri, JD
There has been some recent buzz about the WSJ article on Nathan Myhrvold’s firm Intellectual Ventures. “Tech Guru Riles the Industry by Seeking Huge Patent Fees”-
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122161127802345821.html?mod=googlenews_wsj
The reaction in the industry has been mixed. With patent asset sales being one of our core services, this article does not go unnoticed at GTT.
Whenever we market and sell a patent portfolio, we give our clients complete access to every step of the process and ask for their input at all critical stages. One way in which we keep our clients intimately involved in the process is that GTT always gets approval before contacting a potential purchaser. Many clients strive for the most competitive bidding environment they can find, which would most certainly involve contacting all non-practicing entities (NPEs) that have interest. Some clients, however, desire to not market to NPEs and we honor these desires.
Continued investment into companies like IV is a good indication of the strength of the patent monetization market. With each patent portfolio sale, GTT strives to create the most competitive bidding environment possible. Our foremost goal, however, is to dutifully serve our clients. If this means refraining from contacting NPEs, we honor our clients’ desires.
10/1/2008
Andrew Godsey, VP Sales
Here at GTT, our daily involvement in the transferring and valuation of patents gives us valuable insight into technology trends.
Last week a Google application was published at the USPTO titled “Flexible Communication Systems and Methods”, which essentially allows smartphone users to force mobile operators to compete for their services.
The application allows for devices to operate on a variety of networks. When a mobile device has a need for a service (e.g. Wi-Fi, WiMax, cellular, etc.), a listing of the service providers and their prices are sent to the device for the user to decide which service to use, giving the consumer more power over their provider source as well as providing price competition in the market.
This technology will create an environment that is in stark contrast to current provider operations. In the US, there are relatively few telecommunication service providers and it may take some time for the invention to have a substantial impact unless a user has multiple Wi-Fi hotspot choices. On a global level the invention should have a more immediate impact, for example, in Europe where users have to regularly switch between networks as they travel between countries.
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1035_3-10052709-94.html?tag=mncol
9/29/2008
An integral part of your litigation defense
GTT has always been doing work in this area, whether our clients were looking for additional operational freedom or fending off patent litigation. Lately, we have been working on an educational campaign to provide counsel with awareness as to the benefit of patent acquisition strategy as a required tool to bring litigation to conclusion and even to prevent litigation from ever happening. Many corporate counsels and in-house patent managers have asked us when should they contact GTT regarding patent acquisition. I have always answered this question with a simple answer: if your objective is to minimize expense, then contact us when you first identify the potential issue. Obviously, if we can put out the fire before it starts, the client avoids the litigation associated expenses and potential business threat. However, even if the matter has entered litigation, we can assist to limit or end the business threat.
Similarly, many clients have asked us how to deploy a patent acquisition strategy related to non-practicing entities. GTT has developed a unique strategy related to such situations. If you are further interested we can discuss in additional detail and determine whether GTT is in a position to assist.
8/5/2008