employing analytics to drive results · 6/25/2019 · ford npa q4 2018 fees due ford pa q4 2018...
TRANSCRIPT
EMPLOYING ANALYTICS TO DRIVE RESULTS
June 25, 2019
TOPICS:• Overview
• Core IP Analytics GroupingsPatent preparation/maintenance- Rachel Smith
Portfolio Strategies- Tiffany Fidler
Enforcement/Monetization strategies- Sangeeta Gandhi Shah
• Q&A
2
PATENT PREPARATION AND MANAGEMENT RACHEL SMITH
•Examiner Metrics may be used to guide prosecution decisions
Appeal v. RCE
Interviews
Appeal Forwarding Fee
ANALYTICS-BACKED PROSECUTION
4
ANALYTICS: EXAMINER METRICS
5
ANALYTICS-BACKED PROSECUTION
ANALYTICS-BACKED PROSECUTION
6
ANALYTICS-BACKED PROSECUTION
7
ANALYTICS: EXAMINER METRICS
8
ANALYTICS-BACKED PROSECUTION
ANALYTICS: EXAMINER METRICS
9
ANALYTICS-BACKED PROSECUTION
•Analytics may be used to
Compare outside service providers
• Allowance rates
• Average actions to disposition
• Claim change from issuance to allowance
FIRM AND CLIENT ANALYTICS
10
ASSIGNEE STUDY
11
Firm Applications Allowance Rate
Months to Disposition Office Actions Ind. Claim
ChangeDep. Claim
Change
Our Firm 260 94% 21.3 1.7 0.1 -2.1
Firm A 172 92% 27.9 2.3 0 -0.6
Firm B 117 77% 24.6 1.8 0 -1.1
Firm C 73 82% 26.1 2.1 0 -0.5
Firm D 73 94% 24.4 1.5 0.1 -1.5
ASSIGNEE STUDY
12
Firm Applications Allowance Rate
Months to Disposition Office Actions Ind. Claim
ChangeDep. Claim
Change
Our Firm 260 94% 21.3 1.7 0.1 -2.1
Firm A 172 92% 27.9 2.3 0 -0.6
Firm B 117 77% 24.6 1.8 0 -1.1
Firm C 73 82% 26.1 2.1 0 -0.5
Firm D 73 94% 24.4 1.5 0.1 -1.5
ASSIGNEE STUDY
13
Firm Applications Allowance Rate
Months to Disposition Office Actions Ind. Claim
ChangeDep. Claim
Change
Our Firm 260 94% 21.3 1.7 0.1 -2.1
Firm A 172 92% 27.9 2.3 0 -0.6
Firm B 117 77% 24.6 1.8 0 -1.1
Firm C 73 82% 26.1 2.1 0 -0.5
Firm D 73 94% 24.4 1.5 0.1 -1.5
•Extenuating circumstances may lead to varying statistics acrossclients and firmsAmount of foreign prosecution corresponding to the US case
Country of origin
Technologies that differ across firms
FIRM AND CLIENT ANALYTICS
14
•Analytics may be used toReview competitor trends
• Identify abandonment rates by technology class
Review your portfolio to identify higher value patents
• Number of citations
USING ANALYTICS TO REVIEW MAINTENANCE FEES
15
$2,3
52,2
00
$3,4
63,5
00
$4,8
17,6
00
$4,7
09,7
00
$4,9
11,8
00
$7,1
95,4
00
$9,7
56,6
00
$8,4
68,7
00
$7,2
52,0
00
$11,
033,
400
2 0 1 8 2 0 1 9 2 0 2 0 2 0 2 1 2 0 2 2 2 0 2 3 2 0 2 4 2 0 2 5 2 0 2 6 2 0 2 7
COMPANY A 10 YEAR MAINTENANCE DATASeries1
USING ANALYTICS TO REVIEW MAINTENANCE FEES
16
PORTFOLIO MANAGEMENT TIFFANY FIDLER
BENCHMARKING, LANDSCAPING, AND ANALYSIS
Own Portfolio
Known Competitor Benchmarking
New Competitor Identification
CITATION PYRAMID
TREND IDENTIFICATION AND MANAGEMENT
Grants vs abandonments by technical area
CPC Class
No. P
aten
ts
Chart By CPC Class
3 3 3 3 3 31 5 70 1 1
74
192
236
97104
39
109
373
72
50
288
89
2 4 0
78
15
1
54
204
59
302
328
19
28
213
53
1
Ford NPA Q4 2018 Fees Due Ford PA Q4 2018 Fees Due Ford 2014-2017 Grants Toyota 2014-17 Grants Toyota Aban Cases 2016-2018GM 2014-17 Grants GM Aban Cases 2016-2018
0
100
200
300
400
50
150
250
350
com.AcclaimIP.www: Source
VISUAL MAPPING
Relecura
ENFORCEMENT/MONETIZATION STRATEGIES
SANGEETA GANDHI SHAH
Ameranth, Inc. v. Domino’s Pizza LLC.
GKN Automotive LTD. v. JTEKT Corporation
Background/Pendency
23
Ford Global Technologies, LLC v. New World International Inc et al TXND-3-17-cv-03201
BACKGROUND/PENDENCY
24
Ameranth, Inc. v. Domino’s Pizza LLC.
GKN Automotive LTD. v. JTEKT Corporation
MOTION OUTCOME/RULINGS
EXPERT WITNESS
• Create dossier of potential experts
• Super-vetting
• Minimize risk of Daubert challenges
26
CITATION PATTERNS
27
EMERGING TECHNOLOGIES
28
PATENT ANALYSIS TOOLS
29
Sangeeta [email protected]
CEO
Rachel [email protected]
Shareholder
Tiffany [email protected] Patent Prosecution
30