Recomendados
Recomendados
Más contenido relacionado
La actualidad más candente
La actualidad más candente (20)
Similar a How to valuate and determine standard essential patents
Similar a How to valuate and determine standard essential patents (20)
Más de MIPLM
Más de MIPLM (20)
Último
Último (20)
How to valuate and determine standard essential patents
- 1. Intellectual Property Analytics How to Valuate and Determine Standard Essential Patents Dr. Tim Pohlmann IPlytics GmbH Ohlauer Strasse 43, 10999, Berlin www.iplytics.com
- 3. IPlytics Platform VALUATION IDENTIFICATION EXTRAPOLATION Quantify technical value Identify tech clusters Estimate Similarity
- 5. Standards and innovation “[…standardization is the joint development of innovative technologies …]” Baron et al. (2014): Standards, Consortia and Innovation, International Journal of Industrial Organization, 36, pp.22-35.
- 6. Yearly technology contributions by 3GPP members 0 20.000 40.000 60.000 80.000 100.000 120.000 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 3GPP contributions to 2G, 3G, 4G or 5G per year 3GPP contributions
- 7. Yearly technology contributions by IEEE members 0 1.000 2.000 3.000 4.000 5.000 6.000 7.000 8.000 9.000 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 IEEE 802 WG contributions per year IEEE 802 contributions
- 8. Worldwide SEP declarations 19.062 17.793 18.763 16.156 25.761 14.969 23.424 33.300 39.054 0 5.000 10.000 15.000 20.000 25.000 30.000 35.000 40.000 45.000 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 Worldwide declared Standard Essential Patents per Year of Declaration
- 9. The licensing of SEPs pooled 8% not-pooled 92% Pooled vs. not pooled SEPs➢In total, over 200 independent patent owners have declared at least 100 SEPs ➢Only 8% of the SEPs are licensed through patent pools ➢The number of licensors has been growing ➢Consequently cross-licensing is complex, often inefficient and subject to conflicts ➢Accordingly, the number of SEP litigation is increasing
- 10. FRAND determination “…in assessing a FRAND rate counting patents is inevitable…” Justice Birss concludes in Unwired Planet vs. Huawei
- 11. What share of declared SEPs is actually essential? “…studies indicates that only 20-28% of patent families declared essential are actually essential…” EU Study (2017): Landscaping Standard Essential Patents. European Commission DG GROW Unit F.5
- 12. How much effort is it to check essentiality? “To identify if one of our own declared SEPs is actually essential we need up to 3 full time experts over at least one week...” Patrick Hofkens, Director IPR Policy at Ericsson
- 13. Average costs associated to essentiality checks? EU Study (2017): Landscaping Standard Essential Patents. European Commission DG GROW Unit F.5 as of data delivered by the PA Consultant Group ➢ SEP claim chart reports cost around 7,500 EUR per patent ➢ With about 160k (as of today) declared LTE SEPs costs would sum up to 1,2 billion EUR
- 14. How accurate are essentiality checks? Keith Mallinson "Do not Count on Accuracy in Third-Party Patent-Essentiality Determinations " http://www.ip.finance ➢Two claim chart based SEP studies differ in portfolio estimations by factor 17 ➢Disagreement on LTE SEPs: Regression shows extremely weak correlation between two studies’ results (R2=0.0008)
- 15. SEPs often relate to multiple standard specifications Ø 6,84 ➢SEPs‘ claims may be essential to several standards specification ➢SEPs are declared to on average 6,84 standard specifications
- 16. Standards documents are complex EP2675081B1 TS 37.340 (98 page document) TS 23.501 (219 page document) TS 36.311 (671 page document) TS 38.213 (122 page document) TS 38.214 (253 page document) TS 38.215 (175 page document) TS 38.300 (187 page document) TS 38.321 (215 page document) TS 38.322 (342 page document) TS 38.323 (287 page document) TS 38.331 (198 page document) TS 38.413 (104 page document) TS 38.423 (186 page document) TS 38.473 (356 page document) ➢E.g. “EP2675081B1“ has been declared to 14 different 5G standards specifications ➢The 14 standards documents are complex and have 98-671 pages
- 17. n:m combinations of patents and standards 281,699 worldwide SEPs 1,927,854 combinations of declared SEPs and standards documents declared to Ø 6,84 standards specifications x =
- 18. Royalty share Patent owner’s SEP portfolio for LTE Total number of worldwide SEPs for LTE = Royalty Share Numerator: Identifying the actual number of SEPs is expensive and may only in some cases - depending on the SEP portfolio size – be economically feasible. Denominator: Identifying the actual number of all SEPs related to e.g. LTE is economically not feasible.
- 19. Essentiality checks are subjective “…determining overall essentiality across thousands of patent families … with standards such as 4G LTE is subjective and potentially unreliable…” Keith Mallinson, http://www.ip.finance, 2017
- 20. Objective essentiality are data driven patent claims standards documents standards contributions standards WG attendance SEP declarations ➢A data driven SEP essentiality check is objective and not biased ➢Semantic models used in big data frameworks allow comparing millions of document combinations humans will never be able to analyze ➢A probabilistic model estimates the likelihood of SEP essentiality and makes use of SEPs claim charts to verify results
- 21. Data source 90 M Patent Documents 280.000 SEP declarations 4 M Standards / Contributions Worldwide Patents (USA, Europe, Korea, Japan, China, etc.) • INPADOC family identifier • IPC/CPC classifications • Legal status analysis (granted/active/expired) • Reassignment information Declared Standard Essential Patents • Patent and standards document number • Licensing commitments (e.g. FRAND) • Patent Pools Standards Documents • 2,5 M standards documents (Titl., Abstr.., supporting company) • 1,5 M standards contributions (Titl., Abstr.., supporting company) • Standards release and version update
- 22. The Universe of potential SEPs 37,380 declared SEPs for 5G 168,863 patents in the potential 5G Universe o Contributing companies o Similar IPC/CPC o Similar prio. date time span
- 23. Characteristics of essentiality 168,863 patents in the potential 5G Universe 1. Patent’s claims are semantically similar to corresponding proposed Tdoc 2. Patent’s claims are semantically similar to corresponding standard document 3. Patent’s inventors (name, surname, affiliation) participated at 5G corresponding RAN meeting 4. Patent’s applicant/assignee contributed at 5G corresponding WG 5. Patent’s inventors (name, surname, affiliation) supported the corresponding 5G specification 6. Patent’s IPC/CPC overlap with core IPC/CPCs in declared SEPs 7. Patent’s prio. date overlaps with core prio. date range of declared SEPs 8. Patent has been cited by declared SEPs (excluding self-citations)
- 24. Semantic analysis of patent claims and standards TS 38.211 TS 37.340
- 25. Semantic analysis of patent claims and standards ➢Word vector matrix (term-document matrix) where each row corresponds to a term (of the documents of interest), and each column corresponds to a document. ➢Each element (m,n) in the matrix corresponds to the frequency that the term m occurs in document n. ➢We apply Log Entropy as local and global term weighting.
- 26. Semantic analysis of patent claims and standards ➢ Dimensionality is reduced by deleting all but the k largest values on this diagonal, together with the corresponding columns in the other two matrices. ➢ This truncation process is used to generate a k-dimensional vector space. Both terms and documents are represented by k-dimensional vectors in this vector space. ➢ The relatedness of any two objects represented in the space is reflected by the proximity of their representation vectors, in our case: cosine measure.
- 28. Prediction model logit(x) = logit(a + b1*x1 + b2*x2 + … bk*xk) = Prob(Essentiality given x1...xk) ➢ The likelihood function picks values for b1 through bk that provide the best possible match between the model’s predictions and the actual data on verified essential patents ➢ The weights (z values) are chosen by the computer to provide the best possible fit between the “predicted” probability of essentiality
- 29. Prediction model Predicted: SEP Verified Coef. Std. Err. z P>z [95% Conf. Interval] inventor's meeting attendance at RAN Meeting 0.2143 0.0185 3.58*** 0.0010 0.1781 0.2506 applicant/assignee's standard proposals at relevant RAN Meeting 0.0016 0.0002 4.67*** 0.0010 -0.0021 -0.0011 inventor's support TS documents 0.0152 0.0045 3.36*** 0.0010 0.0063 0.0241 cited by other SEP count 0.0103 0.0075 1.37* 0.1710 -0.0251 0.0045 patent's prio. date overlap with declared SEPs 0.6195 0.0795 1.79*** 0.0010 0.4637 0.7754 patent's CPC/IPC overlap with declared SEPs 0.0383 0.0772 0.52 0.6010 -0.1081 0.1867 standard document-claim similarity score 1.4153 0.1540 4.19*** 0.0010 1.1134 1.7172 proposal document-claim similarity score 2.1700 0.1218 7.82*** 0.0010 1.9313 2.4087
- 30. 5G predicted SEP portfolios 85,90% 85,91% 85,95% 85,99% 86,29% 86,32% 86,37% 86,54% 86,54% 86,84% 86,93% 87,72% 87,73% 87,74% 87,75% 87,78% 87,87% 87,89% 88,21% 88,31% 88,32% 88,68% 88,83% 88,83% 88,87% 89,15% 89,35% 90,07% 90,30% 90,34% 90,70% 91,14% 91,26% 91,82% 85,00% 86,00% 87,00% 88,00% 89,00% 90,00% 91,00% 92,00% 93,00% US9854245 US9769473 US8873627 US9083981 US20150326859 WO2012090397 US9693052 JP2013081100 US9479777 US8953689 US9432680 US20120320980 JP2014060756 US20120195366 US20150245070 US20160241850 US9445120 US20150304671 US20130272401 US9848195 US9794576 US8837845 EP2728864 EP2728864 US20160142732 EP2720461 JP2014060757 US8792741 US20140119439 US9762910 US9485510 WO2013108613 US20150245059 US9225990 Probabilistic SEP likelihood
- 31. Schopenhauer Straße 93e 14129 Berlin Germany +49 30 555 742 82 info@iplytics.com www.iplytics.com IPlytics GmbH Contact