The best approach to patent valuation
Last week at the Best Practices in Patent Monetization conference, Dr. Ryan Sullivan, president of Quant Economics, Inc., gave a lecture on the best approaches to patent valuation.
March 13, 2014 at 09:23 AM
2 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Economists like to use analogies since they often find themselves explaining concepts that might be a bit over the head of the average non-economist. They also like to use analogies that involve real estate, since that is a high-value economic transaction that many civilians are familiar with. This was the case last week at the “Best Practices in Patent Monetization” conference when Dr. Ryan Sullivan, president of Quant Economics, Inc., gave a lecture on the best approaches to patent valuation.
He outlined three different approaches to valuation of assets. The first is the “cost approach,” where you form your valuation based on the costs that go into creating something. With a house, it would be lumber and real estate. You consider historical costs and reproduction or replacement costs. In terms of patents, this valuation would be based on the cost to develop the invention or by comparing it to an invention of equal quality. While this strategy works well for a home, it is not best suited to valuing a patent, since there is far more involved in the creation of a patented technology than just the materials that go into it.
The second method is called the “income approach.” In real estate terms, this means using your home as an asset, say, renting it out to tenants. It takes into account factors like future income streams, timing and duration of that income and associated risks. In terms of patents, this equates to licensing deals, where the valuation is dependent on the economic benefit derived from ongoing utilization.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
Trending Stories
- 1Federal Judge Won't Stop Title IX Investigation Into Former GMU Law Professor
- 2What We Know About the Kentucky Judge Killed in His Chambers
- 3Judge Blasts Authors' Lawyers in Key AI Suit, Says Case Doomed Without Upgraded Team
- 4'I'm Staying Everything': Texas Bankruptcy Judge Halts Talc Trials Against J&J
- 5NY Judge Resigns Amid Investigation of Alleged Unwelcome Sexual Advances, Judgments for Friends
Who Got The Work
Charles A. Weiss of Holland & Knight has entered an appearance for Rafael Badalov in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed July 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Lee Law on behalf of Otter Products LLC, accuses the defendant of selling counterfeit phone cases and accessories bearing the plaintiff's 'OtterBox' trademark. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nina R. Morrison, is 1:24-cv-05214, Otter Products, LLC v. Badalov et al.
Who Got The Work
Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher partners Benjamin Hershkowitz, Richard W. Mark and Casey J. McCracken and R. Scott Johnson, Thomas M. Patton and Cara S. Donels have entered appearances for Berkshire Hathaway Energy Co. and MidAmerican Energy Co., respectively, in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 17 in Iowa Southern District Court by Nyemaster Goode PC and Caldwell Cassady & Curry on behalf of Midwest Energy Emissions Corp., asserts six patents related to sorbents for the oxidation and removal of mercury. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Stephen H. Locher, is 4:24-cv-00243, Midwest Energy Emissions Corp. v. Berkshire Hathaway Energy Company et al.
Who Got The Work
Michael J. Hickey and Michael L. Jente of Lewis Rice LLC have stepped in to represent Tidal Wave Management in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 18 in Missouri Western District Court by Husch Blackwell on behalf of Waterway Gas & Wash Co., accuses the defendant of using a mark that's confusingly similar to the plaintiff's 'Clean Car Club' mark. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Fernando J. Gaitan Jr., is 4:24-cv-00471, Waterway Gas & Wash Company v. Tidal Wave Management LLC.
Who Got The Work
Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz partners Lauren M. Kofke and William Savitt have stepped in to represent CVS Health and and its top officials in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 30 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Chaya Sara Kaufmann, accuses the defendants of failing to disclose that they used misleading forecasts to set premium plans which overstated the profitability of the company's health care benefits segment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Margaret M. Garnett, is 1:24-cv-06595, Kaufmann v. Lynch et al.
Who Got The Work
Robert L. Wallan from Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman has entered an appearance for Findlay Management Group in a pending complaint for declaratory judgment. The complaint, filed on Aug. 8 in Nevada District Court by Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani and Skarzynski Marick & Black on behalf of Houston Casualty Co., seeks to declare that no insurance policy exists between Houston Casualty and Findlay due to there not being an adequate form of delivery and claims that if delivery was substantiated it is rescinded based on material omissions and misrepresentations. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gloria M. Navarro, is 2:24-cv-01459, Houston Casualty Company v. Findlay Management Group.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250