Strategic patenting is the methodical filing and prosecution
of patent applications. Strategic patenting is performed with the objective of
creating a patent portfolio that can be monetized through sale, licensing or
litigation. Strategic patenting involves the purposeful mining of ideas from
researchers and the marketing and sales staff. These ideas are then perfected
through cost-effective research and study of the prior art. In this Analysis, Charles
A. Eldering discusses strategic patenting in the context of the patent reform.
The methodology behind strategic patenting
is not magic, nor is it completely unknown to patent practitioners. It is,
however, largely ignored, due in part to the constraints imposed by traditional
corporate patent process and the expectations set on many patent prosecutors.
The requirement for prosecutors to "obtain a patent" regardless of
the breadth of the claims often results in patents that have overly complex or
narrow claims. This requirement frequently results in patents with little or no
economic value. This is not to say that all patents should have simple and
broad claims; the prior art simply does not allow that. Rather, patent
practitioners can and should keep the end goal in mind--the allowance of sets
of claims that have the highest possibility of being monetized because they
cover a technology or market as that technology or market evolves.
Many patent practitioners have, over the
decades, developed strategic portfolios worth tens, if not hundreds, of
millions of dollars for their clients. Hitachi and Texas Instruments, for
example, are known to generate significant revenue from their patent
portfolios. From 1970 - 2000, Hitachi engaged in four stages of strategic
patenting that would ultimately generate $ 455 million in patenting royalties
per year. During one of these stages of strategic patenting, Hitachi increased
its patent licensing revenue by approximately 200 million yen per year by
filing basic patent applications on what it anticipated as society's technological
direction. Similarly, Texas Instruments avoided bankruptcy in the mid-1980s
through an aggressive strategy of patent licensing and enforcement. Texas
Instruments would eventually become a leader in strategic patenting and, by
2000, generate approximately $ 800 million per year in patent licensing fees.
Although well known and acknowledged in the patent licensing community, the
role of strategic patenting in these successes is not always appreciated. But
for the constant attention to the direction of the claims of the portfolio
these patents would have probably only generated a small fraction of the total
revenue they ultimately produced.
In spite of the known advantages of
strategic patenting, there is a tendency towards rote filing and prosecution,
with little objective in mind. Patents are an asset class. Developing a patent
portfolio is no different than building an investment portfolio. A positive,
and often substantial, return should be expected. Businesspeople and
prosecutors should always consider the return on investment generated by
research and legal costs.
Can this be done? The data suggests yes.
Twenty years ago, the buying and selling of patents was viewed as an esoteric
market, which only existed due to the needs of parties in litigation. Today,
the purchasing of patent assets, both for portfolio building to support ongoing
or emerging businesses, as well as to generate revenue, is commonplace, widely
accepted, and viewed as a good use of intellectual property. Ten years from
now, the strategic building of patent portfolios, with clear goals and measured
economic returns, is likely to be commonplace.
Overview of Aspects of Patent Reform Impacting Strategic Patenting
The AIA transforms the U.S. Patent System
from a first-to-invent system to a first-to-file system by establishing new
conditions for patentability under 35
U.S.C § 102. Prior to the enactment of the AIA, 35 U.S.C § 102(a) denied an
applicant a patent if his or her invention was described in a patent or
publication prior the applicant's invention date.
The AIA amends 35 U.S.C § 102 so that an
applicant is denied a patent based on disclosures made before the effective
filing date of his or her patent application. These disclosures include
patents, printed publications, public use, or sale of the invention.
Disclosures made by an inventor or joint inventor within one year prior to the
patent application are not considered prior art against the inventor and will
not result in the denial of a patent grant. The first-to-file provision is effective
18 months after enactment (March 16, 2013).
Patent professionals will be required to
create applications and portfolios in an expedient and timely manner as a
result of the first-to-file provision. The first-to-file provision, along with
the institution of a post-grant review process, suggests that expediency in
filing will require timely applications and thorough searches to minimize the
possibility that third parties will put issued patents into review.
full version of Strategic Patenting in a Post Patent Reform Environment with
your lexis.com ID. Additional fees may be incurred. (approx. 15 pages)
If you do not have a lexis.com ID, you
can purchase this commentary and additional Emerging Issues Analysis content at
the LexisNexis Store.
Lexis.com subscribers can explore/search Patent Law resources on Lexis.com or access any of these Mathew Bender Patent Law publications:
Non-subscribers can purchase Patent Law
treatises/resources and Mathew Bender publications from the LexisNexis Bookstore
For more information about LexisNexis products and
solutions connect with us through our corporate