Big Five
The five biggest patent privateers are Acacia Research Group, IP Navigation Group, MOSAID Technologies, Intellectual Ventures, and General Patent Corp.…
February 19, 2013 at 04:41 AM
2 minute read
The five biggest patent privateers are Acacia Research Group, IP Navigation Group, MOSAID Technologies, Intellectual Ventures, and General Patent Corp. Each structures its deals with innovative companies (ICs) differently. And there is often room for ICs to negotiate.
If a privateer offers the IC relatively little money upfront and a share of back-end licensing revenues, the IC should help ensure there will be a back-end. The contract should hold the privateer “accountable for achieving specific financial results over defined periods of time (typically, 24 months and 48 months),” says Erich Spangenberg, chair of IP Navigation. If the privateer fails to meet the targets, the IC should have the option to repurchase its patents at a nominal price.
An IC may want to add other contract provisions that encourage the privateer to license the patents. For instance, says Matthew Rappaport, managing director of IP Checkups, the IC might “consider using a tiered system of incentives to the privateer, dependent on the level of [licensing] success.”
The five biggest patent privateers are Acacia Research Group, IP Navigation Group, MOSAID Technologies, Intellectual Ventures, and General Patent Corp. Each structures its deals with innovative companies (ICs) differently. And there is often room for ICs to negotiate.
If a privateer offers the IC relatively little money upfront and a share of back-end licensing revenues, the IC should help ensure there will be a back-end. The contract should hold the privateer “accountable for achieving specific financial results over defined periods of time (typically, 24 months and 48 months),” says Erich Spangenberg, chair of IP Navigation. If the privateer fails to meet the targets, the IC should have the option to repurchase its patents at a nominal price.
An IC may want to add other contract provisions that encourage the privateer to license the patents. For instance, says Matthew Rappaport, managing director of IP Checkups, the IC might “consider using a tiered system of incentives to the privateer, dependent on the level of [licensing] success.”
This content has been archived.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 All
What to Know About the New 'Overlapping Directorship' Antitrust Development
4 minute read
Turning Over Legal Tedium to AI Requires Lots of Unglamorous Work on Front End
6 minute read
The Met Hires GC of Elite University as Next Legal Chief
Tesla, Musk Appeal Chancery Compensation Case to Delaware Supreme Court
2 minute readTrending Stories
- 16-48. It’s Comp Time Again: How To Crush Your Comp Memo
- 2'Religious Discrimination'?: 4th Circuit Revives Challenge to Employer Vaccine Mandate
- 3Fight Over Amicus-Funding Disclosure Surfaces in Google Play Appeal
- 4The Power of Student Prior Knowledge in Legal Education
- 5Chicago Cubs' IP Claim to Continue Against Wrigley View Rooftop, Judge Rules
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
