From the category archives:

Patent

Nanofutures – the future of Nanotechnology IP?

by Rob Harrison on 16 June 2010

It’s been a couple of interesting days in Oviedo, Spain, at the first Nanofutures conference launching the European Technology Integration and Innovation Platform (ETIP) in Nanotechnology. The ETIP is designed to be Europe’s forum for research and commercialisation of nanotech products and the conference was well attended by a number of European Commission officials and Spanish politicians. Indeed it was a little strange for this participant to participate in a scientific event at which the police were out in force, presumably to protect the (more important) participants.#alttext#

I spent a lot of time talking to others in the conference about their work in nanotechnology and commercialising their efforts. A lot of the posters in the hall outlined some very basic research which is probably years from commercialisation, but there was also a fair share of small start-up companies (often from universities) who were looking for business (and often investment). The understanding of intellectual property issues varied tremendously. One conference speaker from a company based in Santander highlighted the importance of good patent protection, not only in Spain but also in other countries. She emphasised the need to get good IP advice from the very beginning.#alttext#

Another speaker (who shall remain nameless) talked about the success his company was having but failed to deal with any questions about how the technology was protected. His company has no patents (at least none published on the ESPACENET database) and some of the technology seemed fairly easy to reverse engineer (but I’m only a mere Physicist and not a real Nanotechnologist). In that case one wonders how the company is protecting its long term value in intellectual assets

Walking around the exhibition and poster wall was fascinating. Some of the people I talked to really understood the value of the intellectual property developed. Others noted that they thought a patent had been filed or that they’d filed a description with a notary to protect their ideas. There seemed to be little appreciation at the conference of the need to identify and review the intellectual property developed and the most appropriate form of protection. #alttext#

A patent application is only of value if it really protects the business model of the company. Filing a patent on a process so that competitors receive full details of the process (as one company has clearly done) without thinking through and protecting use cases, licensing programmes and business opportunities is often a waste of money and resources. Traditionally some companies had filed details of their ideas with a local notary and relied on these deposits to “prove” that they have prior rights to an invention. That may have been a good strategy when markets are local – but in a global business strategy it has little role to play. Prior use of an idea in Spain does not protect a company from an alleged patent infringement in the United States (or even in France). And it is also not a substitute for a functioning trade secrets policy in which a company polices its disclosure of confidential information.

One research institute revealed that they had been somewhat surprised to find that a former student had put software developed at the institute into the Internet, apparently without permission. They had been looking to commercialise some of the work and if the software continued to be available free of charge there might be little incentive for anyone to take a licence.

There were a few bright spots. Rob met an old acquaintance from German-based seed company Technostart who is involved in the EU’s ProNano project which aims to take thirty ideas through to commercialisation. She’s well aware of the need to ensure that a company’s intellectual property is well-developed. I was also there in my role as Co-Chair of the Licensing Executives Society International’s (LESI) Electronics, IT and Telecommunications committee. LESI runs a number of educations programmes on the bsuiness of intellectual property which are suitable for smaller companies. Together with his friends Jose Miguel Lissen, a patent litigator at Spanish IP firm Gómez-Acebo & Pombo, and Dario Santander from Bardehle’s Barcelona’s office, we’re looking at what value membership of LESI could offer nanotech entrepreneurs in the commercialisation of intellectual property.

{ 0 comments }

The ABA Journal is reporting (via Bloomberg) that a former partner at law firm Kirkland and Ellis has purchased 4,500 patents and is starting an NPE (or troll, depending on your attitude towards these things).

John Desmarais is a “Billion Dollar Lawyer” (according to Bloomberg) who practiced (what else?) patent litigation. So he’s flipped sides from working for operating companies to becoming a “non-practicing entity” himself. The patents come from Micron Technologies, so presumably the majority lie in the computer memory space though apparently he bought some that cover “photo imaging, telecommunications and search engine technology, plus the largest single cluster of radio frequency identification [RFID] patents.”

The 4,500 number sounds crazily high for a first purchase, but I’m guessing this is just patents and not 4,500 patent families, though I suppose with Micron you never know (especially as the Bloomberg article also mentions 800 patents). The difference is that patents are inherently national rights, and so one patent filed in your home jurisdiction and then filed in a whole slew of foreign jurisdictions results in multiple patents. The whole thing – all the individual national patents related to a single patented technology – form a “patent family”.

The deal is structured with a patent holding company that will use Desmarais’s new law firm for its enforcement work. The patent holding company, Round Rock Research LLC, is according to Patent Freedom now the second largest NPE. The largest is of course Intellectual Ventures.

I’m assuming Desmarais must have got some sort of investment to get going with this, but given his background, maybe not? It sounded like Micron needed some cash, and maybe he cut them in on a percentage of licensing revenues to get a better deal? Just speculation of course, but one to watch.

I’m also wondering what his plans are for Europe?

{ 2 comments }

Patent Pending

May 1, 2010

Denis Crouch over at the Patently-O blog has done an interesting piece of calculation showing that the average pendency of patents in the USPTO is around 4.1 years for those patents not claiming priority to a US provisional application. Now there’s a number of companies out there who are happy that their patents take a [...]

Read the full article →

Relationship between Patents and Standards – the Dutch Case

March 28, 2010

We reported some months ago on the German case concerning the relationship between patents and standards for recordable CDs. In that case, the German Federal High Court decided that the so-called “FRAND defence” could apply to patents relevant to standards. In other words, it is possible for a company implementing a standard to obtain a [...]

Read the full article →

Paris Court revokes granted European Software Patent

March 21, 2010

One of our interests on Tangible IP is the never ending story of software patents. Just to recap: the European Patent Office is currently considering the degree to which computer-implemented inventions are patentable. On the other side of the Atlantic the US Supreme Court has head arguments in the re Bilski case and we’re waiting [...]

Read the full article →

Facebook’s News Feed Patent

March 1, 2010

There seems to be a bit of panic going on in the blogsphere concerning Facebook’s recently granted US Patent 7,669,123 for providing news feeds. Some commentators seem to feel that Facebook have “monopolised” news feeds and that Twitter and co could be on the receiving end of a patent suit. It’s true that the filing [...]

Read the full article →

Economist Article on IV

February 24, 2010

I see that the Economist online are running an article titled Brilliant Inventor or Patent Troll about Nathan and IV at http://www.economist.com/business-finance/displaystory.cfm?story_id=15570585 A view. To try to make this simple to understand. To call Nathan or IV a troll is incredibly simplistic. IV has built one of the Worlds most sophisticated businesses and it has the [...]

Read the full article →

Photovoltaic Solar Cells – Patents in Europe

January 6, 2010

There’s an interesting news report over at EE Times Asia on the patent side of photovoltaic panels. Citing a report by Canadian company Semiconductor Insights EE Times notes. The report is US-centric and so I took the opportunity to see if there was any special European angles.  Germany has been very much in the lead [...]

Read the full article →

Nokia and Apple

October 25, 2009

I noticed that Nokia has lost patience with Apple and decided to bring licensing discussions to a head by issuing proceedings. Poor Apple, like RIM, was late into the 2 and 3G Standards game and the incumbents (Nokia, Ericsson and Qualcomm for 3G) are so embedded in the setting of Standards (and by the way [...]

Read the full article →

IP ownership issues not just for Skype and eBay

August 27, 2009

The recent Skype / eBay story around ownership flags up all sorts of things in what we see in our line of work around IP strategy: IP ownership issues as a rule are always present, and can be very, very costly to fix (but very cheap to fix if caught early). A short Timeline 2001 [...]

Read the full article →