Patently Obvious

Sound Architecture? Intellectual Property Analysis of MIPS Technologies, Inc.

On April 13, 2012, news surfaced that processor designer MIPS Technologies had hired Goldman Sachs to help identify potential buyers for the firm. Considering MIPS is a company that derives its revenue from licensing and royalties, this sale would include a nearly 600 count patent portfolio. Potential buyers would be very well-advised to perform rigorous diligence on the MIPS intellectual properties to “right-size” the transaction.

ShareThis

A Hand from the Grave: Intellectual Property Analysis of Graphics Properties Holdings

On March 27, 2012, Graphics Properties Holdings, the remnant of Silicon Graphics Inc., launched a patent infringement suit against Apple, HTC, LG, RIM, Samsung, and Sony. Despite its non-operating status and troll-like activities, Graphics Properties does hold a decent patent portfolio (read: it’s not perfect, but they do hold early priority to widely used display technologies). What does this mean to these defendants, half of which are already suing each other over patent infringement?

ShareThis

Anything You Can Do, I Can Do Better: Intellectual Property Analysis of Facebook, Inc. v Yahoo!, Inc.

The fight to retain investors is on. In response to Yahoo!’s recent patent infringement suit, Facebook has filed a counterclaim using ten patents of its own. Well, sort of their own. Of the patents asserted, only two were originally assigned to Facebook, which further illustrates our point that Facebook's patent activity is indicative of a company desperate for patent protection. However, Yahoo!’s litigation indicates desperation for revenue, having recently announced plans to layoff 14% of its employees. Could this fight have been avoided, sparing both litigation expenses and JOBS?

ShareThis

You’ve Got [Commercially-Challenged] Patents: Intellectual Property Analysis of AOL, Inc.

News has been circulating that AOL, Inc. is looking for buyers or licensors of its patent portfolio. One of AOL’s top investors has suggested the portfolio is worth, if “appropriately harvested,” more than $1B in licensing income alone. Prospective buyers of the AOL portfolio should remember that Google paid $12.5B for a patent portfolio that has 48% potential commercial impairment. In this case, 71% of AOL’s U.S. patents have potential commercial impairment.

ShareThis

Domo Arigato, Amazon Roboto: Intellectual Property Analysis of Kiva Systems, Inc.

In its second-biggest acquisition, Amazon.com announced on March 19, 2012 that it would buy Kiva Systems for $775 million. Kiva started applying for patent protection a year before the company was founded (maybe Facebook should take note). If “proprietary” expectations in the form of patents were part of the premium paid by Amazon.com, the accounting for this acquisition will be interesting to see. Unfortunately, 75% of Kiva’s U.S. patents appear to be commercially impaired.

ShareThis

Defriending Facebook: Intellectual Property Analysis of Yahoo! Inc. v Facebook, Inc.

On March 12, 2012, Yahoo! filed a patent infringement suit against Facebook. In the complaint, Yahoo! alleges that “Facebook's entire social networking model … is based on Yahoo!'s patent social networking technology.” A bold statement, since all but one of the asserted patents underwent extensive claim amendments AFTER Facebook was incorporated in 2004. What does this mean? It means the asserted Yahoo! patents have the dual benefit of a pre-2004 application date and a post-2004 visibility into technologies that Facebook had already reduced to practice.

ShareThis

Airborne Contagion: Intellectual Property Analysis of iBio, Inc.

On February 29, 2012, iBio, Inc., a pharmaceutical company, announced the issuance of a patent on an influenza virus vaccine. As a result, iBio’s stock increased over 10% during a time when the overall market was declining – proving, yet again, that intangible assets influence marginal value (or at least investor emotion and sentiment). This announcement and subsequent rise in iBio’s stock value is particularly interesting considering Fraunhofer USA, Inc. was, at least at the time, listed as the patent’s inventor and assignee.

ShareThis
Distribuir contenido