I&T-M (FR)
Lezione 4.A
‐ Value of innovation
‐ Valuatation and Evaluation
‐ The paradox of patent
1
I&T-M (FR)
Obiettivo del modulo è imparare a tradurre il vantaggio competitivo a base tecnologica in
successo aziendale: generando innovazione, favorendo i processi che la determinano,
valorizzando (proteggendoli) i risultati.
2
3
Intellectual Property (IP) in its broadest form is the manifestation of ideas, creativity and invention in a tangible form. In common understanding immediate association of IP to patents is made. On the contrary, in addition to patents, many other kind of IPs have to be mentioned that are relevant for different communities including industries, even if they are pursued usually by only some of them; by example Copyright is relevant to all university academic staff and students because of research results and the tools and materials used for teaching, to software programs, to all the
human expression of creativity like literature, cinema, music and broadcasting formats.
There is a need to distinguish between intellectual property as described above and Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) which are legal forms of protection for intellectual property. The IP legal framework consists of specific registered rights (patents, trademarks, copyright and registered designs) “hard IP” and “soft IP”.
This last includes non registered design rights, non‐software copyrighted materials (such as articles, reports, books, lecture notes, presentations, photographs &videos), Trade Secret, marketing strategies & lead time and any form of universally accepted tacit knowledge or “know‐how” then including people and their skills.
4
I&T-M (FR)
Nota: Technology readiness levels (TRLs) are measures used to assess the maturity of evolving
technologies (devices, materials, components, software, work processes, etc.) during their development
and in some cases during early operations. Generally speaking, when a new technology is first or
conceptualized, it is not suitable for immediate application.
Instead, new technologies are usually subjected to experimentation, refinement, and increasingly realistic
testing. Once the technology is sufficiently proven, it can be incorporated into a system/subsystem.
5
6
7
Nestle Has Patent For Nespresso System Revoked
11 October 2013, Wall Street Journal, John Revill ‐‐ "ZURICH‐‐A European regulatory body revoked a Nestle SA patent covering its Nespresso coffee system, the latest blow to the Swiss food giant's efforts to protect its lucrative brand from encroaching rivals.
The European Patent Office's appeals board said Nestle's patent for a device that handles coffee capsules as they sit in the Nespresso machine was invalid. The patent covered the way capsules are ejected from the machine after being used.
The EPO decision is a setback for Nestle, which is trying to use its patents to prevent rivals, such as Ethical Coffee Company SA and Mondelez International Inc. (MDLZ), from producing capsules that fit into the Nespresso machine. So far, those efforts have had mixed results.
...Nespresso is one of Nestle's fastest‐growing brands and racks up an estimated 4.5 billion Swiss francs ($4.96 billion) in annual sales. That success has attracted competitors, who want a slice of a business that carries higher margins than instant coffee and is growing at a faster rate. ..."
8
Sometimes there is nothing better than an Italian coffee conveniently dispensed from one of those colourful coffee capsules. Fortunately, there are now many such options available to coffee lovers worldwide. Recently, the makers of two brands of capsules, Nestlè and Vergnano, brought several IP issues before the Court of Turin.
In an order of June 15 2012 the Specialised IP Division of the Court of Turin issued its preliminary decision in the action filed by Nestec SA, Societe des Produits Nestlè SA and Nespresso Italia SpA
(collectively "Nestlè") against Italian company Casa del Caffè Vergnano SpA ("Vergnano") for alleged infringement of its patent for coffee capsules and its trademark NESPRESSO, as well as for alleged misleading advertising and unfair competition.
Relevant code provisions
According to Article 20 of the Italian Industrial Property Code, a trademark owner has the right to make exclusive use of the mark. The owner is entitled to prevent all third parties, unless they have its consent, from using in commercial activity any sign which is identical or confusingly similar to the registered trademark, even for non‐similar goods or services, if:
The registered trademark enjoys a reputation in the state.
Use of the sign without due cause enables unfair advantage to be taken or detriment to be caused to the distinctive character or reputation of the trademark.
On the other hand, Article 21 of the Industrial Property Code provides that trademark rights shall not entitle the owner to prohibit third parties from using a mark in the course of trade if this is necessary to indicate the intended purpose of a product or service, in particular as accessories or spare parts, provided that such use is in accordance with the principles of fair‐
trade practice.
9
Comment to slide “IPR AND TECHNOLOGY MARKETING 4/4”
Finding almost entirely in favour of Vergnano, the court stated that the manufacture and sale of Vergnano coffee capsules advertised as compatible with NESPRESSO coffee machines did not constitute an act of unfair competition, nor was it detrimental to the character or reputation of the trademark. Thus, Vergano's activities did not violate Article 20.
Turning to Article 21, however, the court concluded that the phrase “compatible with NESPRESSO coffee machines” was too broad and exceeded the limits allowed by Italian law for use of a third‐party trademark in a descriptive manner. When the use is too broad, the court said, it becomes inconsistent with the principles of fair‐trade practice set down by Article 21.
The court combined its different findings by requiring Vergnano to add into its commercial communications specific information regarding the particular types of Nespresso coffee machine with which its capsules are compatible.
Vergnano’s coffee capsules are now sold with the following statement: “Capsules compatible with ÈSPRESSO1882 machines as well as Citiz, Pixie, Essenza, Lattissima, U and Maestria NESPRESSO brand coffee machines for home use.”
As mentioned above, Nestlé had applied for a preliminary injunction in this case; it is now seeking a permanent injunction at full trial.
Thus, the coffee capsule case continues. Unless settled, it is likely to last for several years until a final decision on the substance of the matter is rendered.
9
As it can be simply understood from the above, IPRs shall be treated at least with the same care as, even better than, the tangible ones because they represent the cumulated company know‐
how and that is the starting point for future growth.
On IP basis it is possible for the company to drive win‐to‐win bargains (partnership, cross‐
licensing, JVs, M&A): in fact, by example, when you decide to join someone else for a new product development indeed you are driven by the strategic knowledge that each one can spend in the program more than the mere tangible assets.
10
Most Patent Offices push on the valorisation trough educational initiative both via free on‐line guidelines and procedures and specific class based training . In this respect some of them have freely developed and published guidelines, checklists and tools to support management and valorisation
mainly of patents, such as: “IP Health check” by the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO)[4], the provision of on‐line models of Technology Transfer and R&D Agreements by the Portuguese Patent Office, or IPscore®, the patent portfolio management tool sponsored by the European Patent Office
(EPO) [12]. These initiatives generally refer to patents and related technologies and are directed to either SMEs or Technology Transfers Offices (TTOs) for Universities and Research Centres.
On the industrial side the UK government adopted a very incisive legislation to allow more than one half tax exemption on revenues coming from patented products (called “PATENT BOX”). This isn’t the only initiative in Europe but probably the strongest one, for sure; there is a large debate on
comparison with similar regulations such as those in Belgium, Luxemburg and The Netherlands to check if it is configurable as unfair tax competition among EU member states. Also in Italy there are some “campaigns” to promote the growth of IP policy through advertising (see “Defend Industrial Property” by MISE ‐ Minister of Economic Development) and funding of, again, SMEs in order to sustain costs for first filing of patents. 11
Patent valuation is a hot topic that has been addressed in numerous discussions, publications and conferences over the past few years. Whether the purpose is to include patents in the balance sheet or to measure their technical relevance, to date the only consensus about patent valuation seems to be its importance and necessity. Patent valuation is often misunderstood and confused with the principle of patent evaluation. Further, patent valuation seems difficult for several reasons. However, patent evaluation has come a long way and some methods have proved to be surprisingly efficient – provided that the context is established correctly.
12
More than 120 patent portfolio valuation metrics have been submitted, discussed and challenged by IP experts and business decision makers over the past 20 years. Some of those metrics that particularly stand out and are considered meaningful are:
• patent litigation count;
• patent re‐examination count;
• patent opposition count;
• uncited prior art count;
• co‐pending prior art count;
• average number of backward citations;
• average patent portfolio age;
• co‐assigned art;
• average number of inventors;
• patent citation velocity;
• average number of forward citations;
• average forward citations by others;
• predator presence;
• company patent fences;
• self‐citations versus others’ patent citations;
• international patent classification dispersity;
• generality index;
• originality index;
• radicalness index;
• claim length;
• patent portfolio reassignment frequency;
• average family size;
• total count of Tier 1 and BRIC counting patents.
13
Here are some sample questions:
• How much has the value of companies’ patent portfolios grown in 201x?
• Are my patents worth more than those of my competitors?
• Are my 10 targeted patents worth licensing out? And if so, to whom ?
• Which patent should I stop renewing this year?
14
Global valuation models: Three main steps are required to build a global valuation model:
• Estimate the value V for historical patents (based on renewal behaviour for the set of patents considered).
• Compute predictor metrics P for the same corpus (numeric patent data such as citations, number of patent family members and claim length can be used).
• Build the model.
Machine learning techniques can be used to estimate V = f (P). The value V can now be estimated for any patent for which the metrics can be computed, as well as for any set of patents (eg, patent pools, patent portfolios).
Goal‐driven evaluation: Defining the IP‐based business goal drives how to make the best decision on an IP related issue. Thus, asking the right question is essential:
• Can we license out some of our patents? To whom?
• Is this patent cluster offered to us for licensing a good match for our company?
• For which patents should we stop paying annuities? To answer these questions, licensing professionals use specific metrics to compare the patents at hand with comparable patents.
15
Nothing is absolute
The core of the evaluation process consists of comparing metric value with the distribution of metric values for a comparable set (similar art).
Values such as ‘originality score of 0.7’ have no intrinsic meaning for business stakeholders. Instead, benchmarking a portfolio with similar
art gives a much better and clearer indication to stakeholders: “How do the selected patents compare to similar patents in the industry?”
16
What is a comparable set?
Evaluating a patent portfolio means comparing it to similar ones from a technical standpoint. This comparison sits on the principle of benchmarking, which requires the building of a comparable set that is as good as possible. Building a relevant set of comparable patents requires expert patent searchers to explore all available techniques, applying best practices and tips, such as combining patent classifications (eg, international patent classifications, cooperative patent classifications, Japanese FI‐terms and F‐terms) with keywords, value‐added content (eg, special indexing), competitors and citations. Some systems offer optimised algorithms combining experts’ experience and best practices with computer value‐added content, which allows the instant retrieval of comparable sets. Semantic search engines that combine citations and classification codes offer unprecedented precision and power for retrieving similar patents.
17
Technology development: speed R&D In the first phase of the innovation lifecycle, technology development, business decision makers must stress strategic challenges to drive their organisations. Developing new technologies and penetrating a new market require key decision makers to understand industry ecosystems and make the best investment decisions to accelerate the R&D process. The key questions at this level address the need to identify essential patents and major players in order to assess acquisition opportunities:
• What patents should we acquire in order to accelerate the development of our technology? Technology scouting can help to answer this question.
• Who are the key players and can we license in their technology? A licensing‐in assessment is then required in order to enable effective negotiations with such players.
Product development: mitigate risks
Launching a new technology requires absolute freedom to operate. It also takes balanced patenting activity to build a patent pool protecting such technology.
Go‐to‐market: sustain competitive advantage
When a technology or product is reaching maturity, decision makers ought to audit their patent portfolios regularly to assess their ability to exclude other players and keep them at a distance. Managing a patent portfolio also involves pruning weak and meaningless patents to reduce high renewal fees. It optimises patent spending and enables full control over the portfolio.
Asset monetisation: maximise profit
The final phase of the innovation lifecycle focuses on revenue generation – in other words, identifying, within a patent portfolio, which patents are good candidates for outlicensing. Classifying a portfolio by good and poor candidates for licensing and identifying the most probable licensees is a first step towards effective negotiation. This process enables companies to maximise their intellectual assets’ return on investment.
18
Whatever the means, the following items are prerequisites in order to carry out an efficient evaluation process:
• worldwide invention‐based familygrouped patent database;
• up‐to‐date normalised legal status information;
• reassignments;
• oppositions;
• litigations;
• licensing;
• alive/dead state;
• comprehensive citation coverage;
• clean and normalised patent assignee names;
• up‐to‐date patent classifications;
• deep indexing (semantic technical concepts);
• sophisticated similarity algorithms;
• citations (forward and backward);
• patent classifications (international patent classifications, cooperative patent classifications);
• semantic indexing;
• broad choice of pre‐defined valuation metrics (120‐plus);
• full user customisation on metrics (weighting);
• fast on‐the‐fly metrics computing capacity.
19
I&T-M (FR)
Lezione 4.B
20
VALUTATION BY FINANCIAL PLAYERS ‐ IAM Magazine 60 pag.44
Put in place a “Strategy Plan” defining the objective to be pursued and ranking them by priority. The Strategy is then implemented through some actions that are described in the following.
PROTECT: protection refers mainly to the above cited legal framework in which you can file and register documents representing your innovative idea at national and Supra National offices (Hard IPs).
AVOID: this action is very close to the preceding. It should be done either to “avoid” to become unconsciously 3rd party infringer or to “avoid” to follow the same technological path of competitors or circumvent their solutions.
DISSUADE: in a complementary way, dissuasion of 3rd party from infringing the company’s products can be accomplished if there is a sufficient IP coverage of the technology areas involved in the product.
MONITOR: there are at least two main reasons to monitor other parties: the first is to be sure, once having protected our IA, that 3rd parties do not infringe our property in that case the infringer can be sued. The second reason is to understand technology trends and on which direction competitors are pushing on, in order to timely produce appropriate company’s technology and product roadmaps, i.e. the Patent & Technology Intelligence.
VALORISE: the term “valorisation” refers to the action of creating value from every Intangible Asset by capturing and extracting its latent economic potential through developing and commercialising the underlying technology.
21
An accurate estimation is also necessary to IP management as basis in negotiation every time an Intangible Asset is involved (e.g. opportunity to sell/buy or license‐in/ out the asset). Several time the valuation is required by Tax Authorities if they want a detailed understanding about the basis for any value determination as per intra‐group International Transfer Pricing. Financing and bankruptcy are other scenarios where a third party will have a valid need to know the value of your intellectual property.
To evaluate the assets it is necessary first to identify it among others, to choose the appropriate timeframe during which it will be valid, to develop a plan of action and a rationale for undertaking the analysis.
22
It is necessary to consider which valuation methodologies to utilize; the most widely recognized evaluation methodologies fall two main categories:
Qualitative and Quantitative methods.
Qualitative evaluation methods provide a collection of characteristics that best represent, in authors’ mind, the quality, effectiveness and industrial feasibility of an IPR; they are expressed by Key performance Indicators (KPI) and they are generally arranged in a questionnaire form.
Many organization have developed and/or adopted qualitative valuation tool; some examples are:
I.P.O. (Intellectual Property Office UK) publishes, among other tools, a guide called “Agreeing a price for IP rights” and a corresponding questionnaire to guide into the process for IP valuation.
E.P.O. (European Patent Office) has acquired the software tool IPscore® originally developed by the Danish Patent and Trademark Office (D.K.P.T.O.), the Copenhagen Business School and a number of Danish companies making it freely available.
Quantitative:
‐ COST BASED: Cost based approaches measure, quantitatively, the value of IPs through the calculation of the costs incurred if the company had to develop a similar asset either in‐house or externally.
‐ INCOME: ‐ MARKET:
23
24
It can be distinguished through the qualitative methods: “score based” and “ranking based” methods as well known:
“rating/ranking based” methods are applicable if the characteristic to be evaluated is intrinsically numeric, then the method has to define the set of numeric values or numeric band gaps that best represent and evaluate it.
25
On the contrary, in “score based” methods, for each characteristic an “arbitrary” scale either numeric again or in the form of “qualitative indicators” is defined – an example is a “techno
Obviously mix of the above are used, a detailed guide to evaluation to explain the rationale must be associated with the methods and some sort of numeric normalization must be added to let the opportunity to have synthetic numeric indicators allowing statistical reports. Criteria for result
evaluation (Negative, Neutral, Positive) can be given too. 26
Historical Cost: The historic cost approach measures the costs (nominal currency) incurred through the development of the IP, at the time it was developed. Literally speaking, the approach requires a very reliable company accounting system, able to well distinguish the R&D costs against the industrialization and production costs; moreover the accounting system should be able to extend far in the past (because in mature companies the know‐how could have started decades ago) being complicated by the fact that companies very often transfer branches of them to third party or merge & acquire others.
Replication Cost: The replication cost approach measures the amount of investment needed to develop similar IP, at the present time, in exactly the same way and achieving the same IP as currently exists. The whole cost of research and development must be included in this calculation, including the costs of unsuccessful prototypes etc, calculated at evaluation time. In other words the costs of the technological roadmap are valuated again as if started at present, including the risky activities that lead to lose in the program.
Replacement Cost
The replacement cost approach is similar to the replication one except that only the successful activities are measured to calculate the amount of money that would be needed to develop the IP as currently available, but as the term “replacement” means, the costs of failed and unsuccessful
research is not included. It is easier to think to this method as the cost of buying the already developed IP from an external source.
27
Market based methods: assume the driver is the market and only the analysis of similar transaction made by independent
actors (competitors, brokers and similar) can give an idea of the monetization value of IP. The assumption is the existence of similar IP subjected to
economic transactions and the accessibility to the final value of the transactions themselves. This approach is the best if an active market exists even if , since IP is unique by definition, it is sometimes difficult to establish that assets are indeed comparable.
Comparable transactions: The value of the IP is given by comparison with similar comparable independent IP or similar transactions. the requirement is that IP and the market are intrinsically comparable and you have enough knowledge of final price of similar transactions.
28
Comparable Royalties: Market based valuation methods may also be based on the comparison of royalty rates used when licensing similar IP. Very often average values are needed as a basis for definition of royalty rates in license agreements or in establishing damages in litigation.
In order to apply this method some consultancy firms specialized in IP have based their business offering, among others, a Royalty Rate data base services in which one can find the best appropriate rate for a particular industry sector in a specific country.
29
Probably the best fitting definition of ‘value’ is based on the ability to do business i.e. to generate future net income.
There are many income based valuation methods, each with many variations according to the reason for valuation and the type of industry. Some examples include the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) or Net Present Value (NPV), risk adjusted Net Present Value (rNPV) and Relief from Royalty methods. The income based methods are the most accepted by the customers because they represent (or try to) the financial benefits ones can obtain investing in the asset.
The Net Present Value (NPV) represents the monetary value associated to the evaluated IP and it is calculated as the sum of all future incoming flows actualized (i.e. whose values are discounted at present time). The Discount Rate takes into account either the normal inflation rate and the WACC (Weighted Average Cost of Capital) balanced with the estimated Risk factor (i.e. how much confident the evaluator(s) are on the forecasted business)
30
In the category of the above described income based methods we can combine them to take into account the risks tied to some technologies, like their maturity, the skill required by personnel, the infrastructure in the country, the availability of basic components, adequate instrumentation and last but not least, commercial strengths or weaknesses or any other legal,market and economic risks related to the IP being valued.
The Weighted Scoring method calculates a risk‐free net present value for the IP (similarly to the DCF method) first and multiplies this by an estimated risk‐factor, or “technology factor”, that takes into account all the above mentioned risks.
31
32
33
34
Pros: The main advantage is the simplicity. The relevant information generally are easily searchable in the public domain, they are very similar to the usual way of thinking and they don’t require the need for complex methods.
Furthermore, with sufficient expertise it is possible to value IP belonging to third parties. As a result, these qualitative methods facilitate the comparison and ranking of IP within a company’s owned portfolio or against competitors’ IP. On the other hand, it is not so easy to attribute a rigorous commonly understandable value scale (e.g. the score to be assigned to a technology’s strength is subjected to ones perception) and can
depend on the personal feeling.
Cons: countable characteristic such as the number of claims of a patent or the number of direct or indirect citation backwards or forwards of patents and/or scientific papers (the former expresses the complexity of the state of the art, the latter expresses if the document under investigation is an
original starting point for further works) say nothing about the scientific and technological quality they disclose.
35
COST BASED Pros: Cost based methods there are many pitfalls associated with them to determine the value of IP. The main disadvantage is that there is no direct correlation between cost of development in the past and the future potential revenues. This IP could still be the most valuable to the company, even though the historical cost approach does not show this or, on the contrary, the underpinning technology is very mature and could be weak in the future. Furthermore, the measure of historic costs is unreliable with rapid technological advancement and it is not always possible to provide accurate information on the resources spent on development. Cons: this approach has an advantage of simplicity and easiness of application, especially in case of Transfer of Technology (ToT) and other
Industral Offset obligations that may or may not kept secret: the customer has to trust on transferee liability and could be unable to capture the wealth‐creating potential of the technology due to the difficulties of obtaining the underlying data and identifying depreciation factors [
Market based methods could be perceived as the most intuitively useful in general because in many situation the evaluation is driven by a potential trade. The pure market based method requires an active market where comparable IP are exchanged among many different parties and sufficient access to transaction price information is
available. Still in the same approach, the use of comparable royalty rates are much more widespread especially as databases of industry royalty rates, comparable transaction information have been collated by large IP right‐holders and independent companies offering valuation services. The above consideration restrict the possibility to use them because very often the information is kept company confidential either in the commercial market and, moreover. Additional considerations regard the possibility, even if market data were available, to make accurate comparison of IPs under evaluation with their benchmark in market, because of their claimed uniqueness and the fact that already traded IPs could be fully exploited or under exploited regardless the price they were exchanged.
Income based methods, as accurate as marketing evaluation plans should be, can be shared between seller and buyer as a useful basis of negotiation. A general acceptance can be found: the variables taken into account are generally well understood by the partners the evaluation can be as accurate as the accuracy associated to the primary variables the very critical variables are the volume of future revenues, the associated costs and investments, the market trend either general and specific to the business; 36
In particular IPscore® tool is based on MS Access Data Base and the underlying method is used to evaluate technologies, patents and patent portfolios. Indeed the tool is two folded: a qualitative and a quantitative evaluation.
IPscore® qualitative assessment is split into five categories: legal, technology, market, finance and strategy, each of which has a group of questions rated from 1 to 5 according to the strengths and weaknesses.
This way, the 40 value indicators (for a maximum score of 200) form a whole picture of the asset and its relative risks and opportunities that can be represented in various tables and graphical forms (mainly radar diagrams) to be used by management for making strategic decisions.
37
Cosa è ed a cosa serve
IPscore è da un lato uno strumento per specialisti professionali e dall'altro un tool che promuove un quadro comune di riferimento per le diverse aree di interesse dell'organizzazione.
IPscore fornisce inoltre una solida base di analisi per la valutazione dei brevetti e progetti di sviluppo in azienda. Managers provenienti da diverse sezioni della società dovrebbero essere coinvolti nel processo di integrazione di IPscore in azienda.
A titolo di esempio, dovrebbe essere coinvolto qualcuno della gestione aziendale; secondo la
struttura organizzativa della società, questo potrebbe essere un manager, un direttore del dipartimento come un marketing manager, o qualcuno in una posizione simile. Ci dovrebbe essere ovviamente anche qualcuno responsabile dello sviluppo del prodotto, come ad esempio un direttore tecnico. Infine, dovrebbe essere coinvolto il responsabile del brevetto, questo potrebbe essere il capo del dipartimento da cui è partita l’ipotesi di brevetto. È molto importante che le analisi iniziali del potenziale brevetto siano collettive quanto più possibile. Esempi di ulteriori aree coinvolte possono essere: pianificazione a lungo termine per lo sviluppo prodotti, marketing & commerciale. 38
L'interpretazione e l'utilizzo dei risultati. Le valutazioni spesso portano messaggi da "leggere tra le righe ". Ci sono modelli nascosti nei risultati? Ci sono aree di potenziale inutilizzato? Ci sono rischi che possono essere ridotti? Quali decisioni sono necessarie per il raggiungimento del massimo ritorno? Quale rilevanza dare ai fattori di valutazione?
IPscore è stato progettato per soddisfare le esigenze specifiche delle aziende, ma nella sua struttura
è progettato per tutti i rami in generale. Pertanto modifiche ed aggiustamenti possono essere richiesti in
determinate situazioni. 39
40
Stato Legale
Questa categoria riguarda la valutazione del brevetto come documento legale, cioè la base giuridica per il mantenimento e l'applicazione del brevetto, la volontà e la motivazione a farlo dell'azienda. La categoria valuta la posizione attuale del brevetto nel processo di concessione, così come l'ampiezza delle rivendicazione del brevetto medesimo. È stato il brevetto in oggetto sufficientemente analizzato per quanto riguarda eventuali violazioni/infrazioni? In generale, la categoria fornisce un quadro dello status giuridico del brevetto e della relativa situazione.
Tecnologia
Il focus di questa categoria è sulla valutazione della tecnologia del brevetto, le prospettive all'interno del tecnologia e le prospettive della tecnologia all’interno delle strategie della Società. Si guarda se la tecnologia possa essere sostituiti da altre tecnologie, se violazioni/imitazioni sono facilmente producibili, se la tecnologia è stato testato e se crea una richiesta di nuove competenze/apparecchiature di produzione. La categoria mira a fornire un'impressione generale del la posizione di forza della tecnologia.
41
Condizioni di mercato
Si tratta di una valutazione di vari fattori e delle condizioni che interessano le possibilità di commercializzazione della tecnologia brevettata e le opportunità di business create quando la tecnologia brevettata verrà incorporata in uno o più prodotti. I settori interessati sono situazione concorrenziale del mercato, crescita del mercato, l'aspettativa di vita del prodotto sul mercato, opportunità di licensing, ecc. Questa categoria genera una visione basata su vari fattori e condizioni, tale categoria quando allineata con lo status giuridico dei brevetti e delle prospettive della tecnologia, mostra il potenziale insito nella tecnologia brevettata. Alcuni risultati della valutazione andranno a contribuire quale fattore di riferimento nei calcoli della previsione finanziaria.
Finanza
La categoria della finanza si concentra su come la tecnologia brevettata influisce sulla struttura finanziaria dell’area commerciale all’interno della quale tale tecnologia sarà utilizzata. Si tratta di una valutazione dei futuri costi di sviluppo del prodotto, dei costi di produzione e degli utili conseguenti. Vengono inoltre valutati i contributi al fatturato totale della società, ma anche le esigenze di investimento per le apparecchiature di produzione. Le informazioni raccolte diventano elementi chiave per l'azienda per le previsioni finanziarie.
42
Strategia
La sezione si concentra sulla strategia ovvero, contro le valutazioni qualitative e finanziarie, lo scopo effettivo ma meno evidente del brevetto. Come intende l’Azienda utilizzare il brevetto? E’ il brevetto uno strumento difensivo? A breve termine è collegato ad un solo prodotto? E’ anche offensivo, ovvero si pone l’obiettivo a lungo termine di garantire un diritto esclusivo che sia limitante per la concorrenza?
43
The Net Present Value (NPV) represents the monetary value associated to the evaluated IP and it is calculated as the sum of all future incoming flows actualized (i.e. whose values are discounted at present time). The Discount Rate takes into account either the normal inflation rate and the WACC (Weighted Average Cost of Capital) balanced with the estimated Risk factor (i.e. how much confident the evaluator(s) are on the forecasted business)
44
45