Sales Savvy
Auctions compete with private sales as the patent market expands.
February 28, 2009 at 07:00 PM
14 minute read
For some companies, it's become a lifeline. They can't raise money any other way. Banks aren't lending. Investors have become skittish. So, over the past six months, a growing number of cash-strapped startups have begun selling their patents. And they're not the only ones. More and more companies of all sizes are seeking to weather these tough economic times by selling patents.
“Since September, I've seen a lot more patents being offered for sale–better quality patents, across all types of industries,” says Don Merino, general manager of acquisitions for Intellectual Ventures, one of the world's largest patent licensing firms.
Selling a patent is tricky, however. The way a company offers it for sale can make a big difference in the final sales price.
Adrian White learned this the hard way when he tried to sell several patents for remotely diagnosing computer malfunctions. He attempted to sell his patents in 2006 at Ocean Tomo's summer patent auction, but the highest bid was just ?300,000 (approximately $600,000). This fell far short of his reserve price of ?500,000 (approximately $1 million).
Several months later, White asked IPotential, an IP management firm, to try brokering a private sale. The company put together a new marketing package, approached some prospects and subsequently sold the patents in June 2007 for $1.5 million–allowing White to net $1 million.
But private sales aren't always better than public auctions. In order to decide which approach is best, sellers need to consider a variety of factors, including the patent's complexity, its estimated value and the seller's need to keep the patents from being purchased by its direct competitors.
“There's no one way to do this,” says Joe Chernesky, president of IPotential.
Sales Force
Sales method aside, it's a good time to be selling patents. Unlike most other assets, they haven't significantly depreciated in value over the past year, according to many experts.
“Good patents are still selling for a quality amount of money,” says Andrew Ramer, managing director of Ocean Tomo's Transaction Practice.
There are still plenty of buyers, despite the economic downturn. “I haven't seen any change in demand,” Chernesky says. Even in tough times, he notes, businesses still require patents to bring new products to market and to protect themselves from lawsuits.
It's also a good time to be buying patents, as more and better patents are now coming onto the market. The economic squeeze is pressuring companies to monetize their patents, and quickly. Not only are patent owners more willing to sell, they are often more willing to negotiate on terms.
“[Patentees] are saying, 'Do I want to get a certain amount of money now, or do I want to be more speculative and try to run a patent licensing program and absorb the costs of that program?' In these tough economic times, many companies are going for the fast buck,” Merino says.
The strong demand for patents may not last, however. The economic downturn is starting to inhibit many companies' willingness to spend, according to some experts. “Buyers are getting a little more cautious, taking a little more time, and are a little tighter on the purse strings,” Ramer says.
However, some companies are buying more aggressively, he adds. “I think that is very wise because they are going to pick up some bargains.”
Auction Action
Patents have been bought and sold for hundreds of years, but the market for these assets has jumped dramatically in recent years. “Today, every good-sized company is buying patents,” Chernesky says. “Some of them are spending more on buying patents than on developing their own.”
And as patents have become more important to the economy, new players have entered the market–companies like Intellectual Ventures, Acacia Research Corp., RPX Corp.–whose goals are to build up powerful patent portfolios and make money by licensing their patents. “Billions of dollars have moved into this space,” Chernesky says.
Three years ago, the market for patents took another big step forward when Ocean Tomo launched the first large-scale patent auction. It generated a lot of attention–and $3 million in sales. The company now offers three patent auctions a year, and its October 2008 auction produced $12.8 million in sales.
As the novelty of these auctions wears off, a growing number of businesses see them as an important venue for patent transactions. “We've seen a significant increase in the number and types of bidders,” Ramer says. “We are getting a lot more large operating corporations that are not only sniffing but buying.”
For sellers, publicly auctioning off a patent is usually much less costly than selling a patent privately through a patent broker. Auctions are thus a good fit for less valuable patents, enabling the seller to keep more of the final price.
Private Sale Prerogatives
Selling a patent by public auction typically is faster than arranging a private sale. This speed, however, sometimes works against sellers. A longer selling process enables a buyer to do more thorough due diligence on the offered patent, and such examination usually is needed if the buyer is to be comfortable paying a lot for a patent.
“As the price goes up, companies usually want to do more research before buying,” Chernesky says. “Patents that sell for over $1 million, especially those that sell for over $5 million, are best suited for M&A-type [private] transactions.”
Complex patents, because they require careful study, are also usually more suitable for private sales. “Life science, biotech and complex pharmaceutical patents require lots of due diligence and time to explore them, so public auctions are not the best venue [for them],” Ramer says.
In addition, in an auction a seller can't ensure that its patent won't be purchased by a direct competitor (since bidders often hide their identity behind agents). Auctions also allow parties much less flexibility in structuring their deals.
“Most auction companies will require full payment within two weeks of sale,” says George Chen, a partner at Bryan Cave. “The buyer may want to pay over time, but the parties often don't have that flexibility in a public auction.”
Private sales and public auctions each have their advantages and disadvantages. A canny seller will select the best sales method based on the seller's goals and its particular patents.
“There will always be a place for private [patent] sales, but there is a place–a need–for public auctions,” Chen says. “The two will coexist together.”
For some companies, it's become a lifeline. They can't raise money any other way. Banks aren't lending. Investors have become skittish. So, over the past six months, a growing number of cash-strapped startups have begun selling their patents. And they're not the only ones. More and more companies of all sizes are seeking to weather these tough economic times by selling patents.
“Since September, I've seen a lot more patents being offered for sale–better quality patents, across all types of industries,” says Don Merino, general manager of acquisitions for Intellectual Ventures, one of the world's largest patent licensing firms.
Selling a patent is tricky, however. The way a company offers it for sale can make a big difference in the final sales price.
Adrian White learned this the hard way when he tried to sell several patents for remotely diagnosing computer malfunctions. He attempted to sell his patents in 2006 at Ocean Tomo's summer patent auction, but the highest bid was just ?300,000 (approximately $600,000). This fell far short of his reserve price of ?500,000 (approximately $1 million).
Several months later, White asked IPotential, an IP management firm, to try brokering a private sale. The company put together a new marketing package, approached some prospects and subsequently sold the patents in June 2007 for $1.5 million–allowing White to net $1 million.
But private sales aren't always better than public auctions. In order to decide which approach is best, sellers need to consider a variety of factors, including the patent's complexity, its estimated value and the seller's need to keep the patents from being purchased by its direct competitors.
“There's no one way to do this,” says Joe Chernesky, president of IPotential.
Sales Force
Sales method aside, it's a good time to be selling patents. Unlike most other assets, they haven't significantly depreciated in value over the past year, according to many experts.
“Good patents are still selling for a quality amount of money,” says Andrew Ramer, managing director of Ocean Tomo's Transaction Practice.
There are still plenty of buyers, despite the economic downturn. “I haven't seen any change in demand,” Chernesky says. Even in tough times, he notes, businesses still require patents to bring new products to market and to protect themselves from lawsuits.
It's also a good time to be buying patents, as more and better patents are now coming onto the market. The economic squeeze is pressuring companies to monetize their patents, and quickly. Not only are patent owners more willing to sell, they are often more willing to negotiate on terms.
“[Patentees] are saying, 'Do I want to get a certain amount of money now, or do I want to be more speculative and try to run a patent licensing program and absorb the costs of that program?' In these tough economic times, many companies are going for the fast buck,” Merino says.
The strong demand for patents may not last, however. The economic downturn is starting to inhibit many companies' willingness to spend, according to some experts. “Buyers are getting a little more cautious, taking a little more time, and are a little tighter on the purse strings,” Ramer says.
However, some companies are buying more aggressively, he adds. “I think that is very wise because they are going to pick up some bargains.”
Auction Action
Patents have been bought and sold for hundreds of years, but the market for these assets has jumped dramatically in recent years. “Today, every good-sized company is buying patents,” Chernesky says. “Some of them are spending more on buying patents than on developing their own.”
And as patents have become more important to the economy, new players have entered the market–companies like Intellectual Ventures, Acacia Research Corp., RPX Corp.–whose goals are to build up powerful patent portfolios and make money by licensing their patents. “Billions of dollars have moved into this space,” Chernesky says.
Three years ago, the market for patents took another big step forward when Ocean Tomo launched the first large-scale patent auction. It generated a lot of attention–and $3 million in sales. The company now offers three patent auctions a year, and its October 2008 auction produced $12.8 million in sales.
As the novelty of these auctions wears off, a growing number of businesses see them as an important venue for patent transactions. “We've seen a significant increase in the number and types of bidders,” Ramer says. “We are getting a lot more large operating corporations that are not only sniffing but buying.”
For sellers, publicly auctioning off a patent is usually much less costly than selling a patent privately through a patent broker. Auctions are thus a good fit for less valuable patents, enabling the seller to keep more of the final price.
Private Sale Prerogatives
Selling a patent by public auction typically is faster than arranging a private sale. This speed, however, sometimes works against sellers. A longer selling process enables a buyer to do more thorough due diligence on the offered patent, and such examination usually is needed if the buyer is to be comfortable paying a lot for a patent.
“As the price goes up, companies usually want to do more research before buying,” Chernesky says. “Patents that sell for over $1 million, especially those that sell for over $5 million, are best suited for M&A-type [private] transactions.”
Complex patents, because they require careful study, are also usually more suitable for private sales. “Life science, biotech and complex pharmaceutical patents require lots of due diligence and time to explore them, so public auctions are not the best venue [for them],” Ramer says.
In addition, in an auction a seller can't ensure that its patent won't be purchased by a direct competitor (since bidders often hide their identity behind agents). Auctions also allow parties much less flexibility in structuring their deals.
“Most auction companies will require full payment within two weeks of sale,” says George Chen, a partner at
Private sales and public auctions each have their advantages and disadvantages. A canny seller will select the best sales method based on the seller's goals and its particular patents.
“There will always be a place for private [patent] sales, but there is a place–a need–for public auctions,” Chen says. “The two will coexist together.”
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 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.
You Might Like
View AllBest Practices for Adopting and Adapting to AI: Mitigating Risk in Light of Increasing Regulatory and Shareholder Scrutiny
7 minute readFOMO Run Amok? Resolve of Firms Chasing AI Dreams Tested by Sky-High Costs
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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