Archive for the ‘Patents’ Category

Top IP Management Mistakes: Saving Money on Maintenance Fees

Friday, February 4th, 2011
By: Fernando Torres, MSc

Challenges of IP Management

Managing an organization’s IP portfolio is full of challenges in the context of global competition, which turn particularly acute in the current economic dynamics of the turnaround from the financial crisis.

There are a few good information sources on the Best Practices for IP management. The International Trademark Association (INTA) and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) serve the global community of large companies and SMEs respectively. Something that is often missing, however, is learning from the mistakes of others. This may be because organizational culture has a way of suppressing mistakes from public view, or because emphasis is often placed on the case-specific nature of such problems, rather than abstracting the general lessons from the experience.

In any case, aside from maintaining a current inventory of intangible assets including intellectual property, designing and enforcing quality controls with internal and external publics, IP managers must continually ensure the organization’s IP policies support and advance the company’s mission and strategic directives.

When the latter process goes wrong, most IP managers can learn a valuable lesson. In this post, we address a critical mistake that we witnessed at a corporate restructuring client some years ago, dealing specifically with global IP.

Mistake #1: Saving Money on Maintenance Fees

In the last few years before a Chapter 11 filing was necessary to restructure the business, the subject company’s IP managers had finally inventoried the complete patent portfolio that had accrued in both the USA and Europe as a result of the company’s growth and M&A activity. The key and elusive piece of puzzle was a matrix, cross referencing the individual patents and the specific product lines and respective factories in which they were applied.

Simultaneously, a central piece of the strategy the company’s top management tried to implement was cost savings across non-essential activities.

Armed with their summary matrix, when the harried IP managers decided on their contribution to the cost saving measures, they identified European patent annuities (yearly maintenance fees) as a material target and proceeded to rationalize the portfolio by suggesting to stop paying those maintenance fees on patents in those European jurisdictions were they did not have significant levels of sales (Italy was a big offender).

The problem here was informational. The IP management summary did not clarify that the patents in those jurisdictions were covered manufacturing processes, not end-products. A couple of years later, in the aftermath of the bankruptcy filing, the company negotiated to settle debts of its European subsidiaries while holding on only to the IP, namely the European patents.

The prior mistake reared its head: the manufacturing plants and their advanced technologies were unprotected in several European countries and the assumed European Patent Portfolio was full of holes and phantom patent assets that had lapsed due to unpaid fees. Thus, regardless of any negotiation prowess, the competitive advantages of proprietary technical advances in the manufacturing plants were discounted by the bidders for the plants, and the company could only sell a few disjointed and not very valuable patents that covered final-product features that change very often in the fast paced markets in used to dominate.

Thus, a superficial understanding of the IP inventory gave way to a substantial loss of value for the restructured company. Needless to say, the US operations were liquidated and the European factories were sold for a fraction of the going concern value.

The Patent to Trademark Value Transition: Nespresso

Thursday, February 3rd, 2011

In several cases, we have argued, modeled, and quantified the value transfer process that occurs during a product’s life cycle from patents to trademarks.  When the product in question is differentiated in the marketplace because of patented features, at the outset it is logical to attribute a substantial portion of intangible value to the patent portfolio (or a properly defined portfolio of technology intangibles if trade secrets are key) and, if appropriate the umbrella brand of a parent trademark (or, again, a portfolio of marketing intangibles).

As the product life cycle advances, customer loyalty, brand equity, and other marketing attributes become increasingly associated with the trademark and, over time, the relative monopoly initially afforded by patent protection yields its place to what we economists call “monopolistic competition” as technological changes and the spectrum of substitutes for the product’s utility advance and introduce competing, but relatively unique, new products.  Eventually, patent protection expires and there comes a point in the life cycle (independent of the maturity of the market) upon which the only intangible value resides in the trademark.

This process is characteristic in the pharmaceutical industry, where a new drug would be introduced under patent protection with additional technology assets being covered by “data exclusivity” by the regulatory authorities.  As the product gains acceptance, prescribers associate its properties to the trademark and patent protection is lost (even during the statutory patent term) due to the regulated provisions allowing for the accelerated introduction of generic medications.  Continued net profits from the sale of the original and, possibly, ancillary sales from derivative products (including “extended release” variants) are directly attributable to the marketing assets, namely accruing to the trademark, as the technology becomes widely available for competitors to use.

Intangible Value Transition

© IPmetrics LLC 2011

The graph illustrates this general principle as the gradual shift from 100% value from the patent side, to a 100% to the trademark side.

Recently, we identified validation of  the Patent to Trademark Value Transition in the food industry, recognized by the IP creator for an iconic global company: Nestle SA.   As reported by Bloomberg, “Eric Favre, who created the first version of Nespresso in 1976 and has since left Nestle to set up a competitor, will maintain its leadership as the biggest maker of coffee capsules because of the strength of the Nespresso® brand even as patents on the product expire.”  Nespresso sales probably almost tripled to 3 billion Swiss francs ($3.2 billion) in 2010 from 1.2 billion francs in 2006, according to Jon Cox, an analyst at Kepler Capital Markets in Zurich.

In an interview at the headquarters of Monodor, his coffee-supply company, Favre said “A plethora of rival capsules will come out,” [but] “The Nespresso brand is more important than the patents.”