Why Would Big Tech Companies Give Away Free Patents?
Though we live in a world where we're trained to suspect anything that's given away for free, there are valid and self-preserving reasons for tech companies to give away patents for free.
September 04, 2018 at 01:34 PM
5 minute read
You may have heard that patent-rich tech companies like Canon, Red Hat and Lenovo are giving away free patents to startups that join a patent protection community. It's part of a program through the nonprofit of which I'm a part, LOT Network, which is a group of companies ranging from startups to well-known names like Tesla, Facebook Inc., Lyft Inc. and Amazon.com Inc. that protect one another from litigation from patent assertion entities (PAE, or “patent trolls”).
Though we live in a world where we're trained to suspect anything that's given away for free, there are valid and self-preserving reasons for tech companies to give away patents for free that concurrently benefit startups as well.
|Supporting Innovation
Many of the companies donating patents were early pioneers in their industries, and continue to have a culture that values innovation.
While each has its own reason for donating patents—Red Hat, for instance, is participating in part to build bridges with software engineers who are leery of software patents, while Lenovo has decided to shed its patent portfolio of patents in areas where the business is no longer involved as a cost-saving measure—all share a desire to do something positive with them. At a minimum, these companies decided in the interest of promoting innovation to donate thousands of free patents to member startups.
By donating patents—and allowing startups to kick-start their patent portfolios for free—the big tech companies are providing startups with a huge benefit. These companies have spent decades investing in research and development, and developing IP capabilities, which allow them to create high quality patents with real value. These companies are pro-innovation and want to help support the technology leaders of tomorrow by giving them a quick leg up on the IP side.
Having a patent portfolio can increase the value of a startup, and make it more attractive to potential investors by showing that there is real substance to its IP strategy. A patent is also an asset that can be asserted or sold. As proof of the authenticity of this program, it is worth noting there are no strings attached. Startups are not required to give up equity or money to obtain the patents, they are not required to stay in LOT for any minimum period of time, and can sell or abandon the patents anytime.
It can take 12-72 months before a patent application is granted, and between $10,000-$50,000 in legal costs and fees to obtain a patent. Thus, the donation program allows startups to save two of its most precious resources: time and money.
We recognize that startups are likely new to the patent “game.” That is why we wanted to assist companies in selecting which assets are best for them. Legal counsel and advisers are available to help startups select from which patents are the best fits for a startup's business, and can serve as a resource to answer questions later as each startup builds its IP program.
|Self-Preservation
The patent donation program is in part an incentive to get startups to join a community that is about protecting and promoting innovation. Today, the community is immunized against over 1.1 million patent assets in the hands of a patent troll. The herd gets stronger with each new member, regardless of the size of the new member.
More than half of companies sued by trolls make less than $10 million in revenue. We also appreciate that cash is king with startups, and we did not want cost to be a barrier to protecting the next generation of innovators. That is why membership is free for any startup with less than $25 million in revenue. Even if the startup doesn't have any patents.
We see this as an investment in innovation that benefits everyone equally in the community. Disruptive startups are the big tech companies of tomorrow. They will eventually have substantial patent portfolios—patents for which our community members want reciprocal immunity from patent troll lawsuits. Thus, the community is providing immunity from troll suits today to startups, in exchange for the startup protecting the membership from troll suits in the future. At the same time, LOT members are free to use their patents in all the traditional ways: sell them, license them and assert them against competitors in and outside the network.
This self-preserving strategy is good for startups too—without any cost to them. By joining our community, startups have a proactive, pre-emptive patent protection strategy that can save them from costly patent troll litigation—to the tune of over $1 million per lawsuit. In addition, they have the opportunity to network and learn from some of the most respected tech companies in the world.
Alexandra Sepulveda, vice president of legal at Udemy Inc., said it best: “The last place you want to be is in front of your board answering questions about why you didn't put preventative measures in place.”
Ken Seddon joined LOT Network in April 2015, bringing over 20 years of experience managing all areas of intellectual property. Previously, Seddon was with some of the largest patent holders in the world including Apple Inc., Micron Technology Inc., Motorola, Intel Corp. and most recently as the vice president of IP at ARM.
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
© 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.
You Might Like
View AllA Blueprint for Targeted Enhancements to Corporate Compliance Programs
7 minute readThree Legal Technology Trends That Can Maximize Legal Team Efficiency and Productivity
Corporate Confidentiality Unlocked: Leveraging Common Interest Privilege for Effective Collaboration
11 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gibson Dunn Sued By Crypto Client After Lateral Hire Causes Conflict of Interest
- 2Trump's Solicitor General Expected to 'Flip' Prelogar's Positions at Supreme Court
- 3Pharmacy Lawyers See Promise in NY Regulator's Curbs on PBM Industry
- 4Outgoing USPTO Director Kathi Vidal: ‘We All Want the Country to Be in a Better Place’
- 5Supreme Court Will Review Constitutionality Of FCC's Universal Service Fund
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