Last year, you told IAM you were adopting a wait-and-see approach to the UPC. How has this evolved over the last 12 months, and what impactful developments are you watching for from the court in its second year?

We have been closely watching developments at the UPC, and in September we reached the milestone of filing our first UPC litigation actions. In general, we are encouraged by the quality of decisions that we see coming from the court and its efficiency. We believe that the UPC will form an important part of strategy when companies refuse to engage in meaningful licensing discussions in future.

If you could make any changes to the licensing landscape in Europe, what would they be, and do you think they are likely to happen?

Europe is a key jurisdiction for us, and we believe that more and more players in the industry are realising the importance of this market. This is especially the case now that the UPC has been established and we look forward to more EPO member states – including Ireland – joining it.

What threats and opportunities do you see coming up in the monetisation space, and how can rights holders best prepare for these?

The biggest threats come from large tech companies that often anonymously lobby governments, trade groups and professors to push their anti-patent initiatives. It is incumbent upon patent rights holders to push back on these strategies and educate regulators and other decision makers as to the value of a strong patent rights system. As for opportunities, many of those same companies are now looking to monetise their patents, which provides opportunities to companies like Key Patent Innovations to assist them in their efforts. 

Amid the unstandardised nature of IP valuation, do you think companies should have to disclose the value of their intellectual property on the balance sheet, and why?

This is a very interesting area of discussion and one that is being looked at in detail by many parties in Europe, including national patent offices and the IP Commercialisation Committee of the European Patent Institute (of which our managing director Angela Quinlan is a member). While accurate evaluation of intellectual property is a non-trivial matter and will likely remain a specialist task requiring expert knowledge, the standardisation of valuation tools may provide an opportunity for companies to leverage their assets to obtain funding to support growth and further investment.

What are some of the biggest challenges that Key Patent Innovations has faced in the past year, and how did you overcome them?

One of the biggest challenges was fully getting our arms around the 32,000 patents that our subsidiary Malikie purchased from BlackBerry. With a portfolio of this size, you need to simultaneously focus on both the forest and individual trees if you are to make any headway in understanding the portfolio’s true value. By focusing team members on specific technology verticals and working with numerous outside groups to study, mine and chart patents in each of these verticals, we now have a much better understanding of a growing number of value pockets in the portfolio. 

Other than the UPC, which jurisdictions in Europe would you recommend for commencing patent litigation, and why?

Germany is a good jurisdiction for adjudicating patent claims. It has a strong judiciary with both interest and experience in handling patent cases, and allows claims to be decided in a timely and efficient manner. 

Against the backdrop of the recent proliferation of patent pools, what is the cornerstone of a top-tier licensing strategy?

It’s absolutely imperative to understand not only the technical relevance of your patents but also how the value of these advancements compares to rates being offered by relevant patent pools. Patent pool rates are often driven by detailed calculations derived from numerous inputs. To implement a top-tier licensing strategy, you need to understand those calculations and how your patents would be treated if they were part of the pool offering and, most importantly, develop a credible story as to why the rates you are offering are supported by that framework – particularly where your rates are higher than patent family rates offered by the patent pools. 

What changes has your organisation observed in the international licensing landscape over the past 10 years – and how has this affected the services that Key Patent Innovations offers?

Long gone are the days of unsophisticated patent licence discussions. Counterparties are much better prepared and have access to numerous diverse sources of information, which means that they often understand the strengths and weaknesses of a patent licence programme pretty well, which, in turn, means you as the patent owner need to similarly raise your game. For Key Patent Innovations, this means we invest significant time and resources in understanding our patents and their value, as well as the tactics and licensing histories of potential licensees, well before any initial engagement.   

How is Key Patent Innovations planning to recruit, mentor and retain the next generation of talent?

Recruiting and mentoring the next generation of licensing professionals is an important focus of our organisation. We find that some of the best ideas on how to implement patent licensing strategies come from newcomers to the patent licensing business. We are actively looking for recent graduates who have scientific or legal backgrounds and a few years of work experience to join our team, regardless of whether they have ever claim charted a patent or negotiated a licence. In our experience, a curious mind, strong work ethic and willingness to take on unfamiliar tasks is as crucial to succeeding in our business as is experience with patents.