Advertisement

June 19, 2013

The Patent Monopoly – More Than The Right To Exclude

Many entrepreneurs often associate the value of patent rights with the ability to protect the patent owner’s position in a given market by demanding royalties from others in the market or excluding them from the market altogether.  However, the value of a patent can also be found in its prospective ability to open up doors to other markets and facilitate movement within a given market.  This is best exemplified by Google’s recent $900 million acquisition of a family of Nortel patents out of bankruptcy. 

For the last several years, Google has been attempting, with some success, to make in-roads into the mobile telecom market.  However, in highly contested and patent-cluttered markets such as this, companies, even as large and formidable as Google, are often faced with significant barriers to entry.  These barriers include the potential of ending up on the receiving end of a patent infringement lawsuit or paying exorbitant royalties to use a competitor’s patented technology.   As Google has realized, though, while patent rights may act as a barrier to entry, they can also hold the key to entry and, once acquired, offer a certain level of freedom to move within the market.  In a blog post on April 4, 2011 regarding the acquisition of the Nortel patents, Google explained: “one of a company’s best defenses against . . . litigation is (ironically) to have a formidable patent portfolio, as this helps maintain your freedom to develop new products and services.”

The Nortel patents recently purchased by Google cover two important technologies related to Long Term Evolution networking, which underlies the “4G” technology that many mobile telecom operators are deploying.  Holding the patents for this underlying technology provides Google with more than the ability to demand royalties for its use or to exclude competitors from the marketplace.  It will also allow Google to gain broader influence in the mobile telecom market through cross-licensing opportunities. 

A cross-license is simply a license given to another to use a patent or invention in return for a similar license.  Given the importance of the technology covered by the Nortel patents, Google is certain to find some takers willing to license their own patent rights in exchange for the right to use Google’s newly acquired technology.  These cross-licenses will provide Google with substantial freedom to develop new products and services in the patent-cluttered mobile telecom market, which it would otherwise be unable to do without the threat of litigation.

Google’s recent acquisition of the Nortel patents demonstrates that patent rights often have value beyond the ability to protect the patent owner’s position in a given market. It is important for entrepreneurs to keep in mind both the potential offensive and defensive uses of patents and to think about what patents they should file or acquire in both contexts.

© MICHAEL BEST & FRIEDRICH LLP

About the Author

John C. Scheller Attorney Michael Best Friedrich LLP
Partner

John Scheller is a partner in the firm’s Litigation and Intellectual Property Litigation Practice Groups and leader of the firm’s Technology Industry Group.  In addition, Mr. Scheller has experience in litigation, licensing and counseling involving trademark, trade dress, trade secret, copyright and unfair competition. 

608-283-2276

About the Author

Kenneth M. Albridge III Michael Best Law Firm patent litigation
Member

Ken Albridge is a member of the Intellectual Property Litigation Group in the Madison office, where the primary focus of his practice is in the area of patent litigation. In addition to intellectual property litigation, Mr. Albridge also has experience litigating complex contractual disputes. He is involved in all phases of litigation and trial preparation and has experience preparing briefs and legal memoranda, conducting legal research, working with expert witnesses, handling discovery matters (including taking and defending depositions), and arguing motions before the court.

608-257-3067

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.