As CEO of Tulip Innovation and Vectis IP, what does inspiring leadership look like to you?

In my view, inspiring leadership is about empowering others to reach their full potential while creating a vision that people are genuinely motivated to follow. I believe that a successful leader is someone who carefully selects and develops a team of likeminded professionals with different but complementary skillsets, fostering a culture of trust, creativity and positive thinking. In such an environment, challenges are embraced as opportunities for growth and learning and we are all aligned as stakeholders in our collective success.

Tulip and Vectis aim to foster innovation through balanced licensing solutions that benefit both patent holders and implementers. What does this approach look like, and how do you measure its success? 

Our balanced licensing solutions are designed to create win-win outcomes for both patent holders and implementers. They ensure that patent owners are properly rewarded for their innovations and implementers gain fair access to the technologies they need to succeed in the market.  To achieve this goal, one of Tulip’s earliest and most critical decisions was to offer licences directly to component manufacturers – such as cell and battery producers – instead of the industry players integrating batteries into their products, like electric vehicle manufacturers. With our Opus audio-codec pool, we chose to take a low-friction approach by having a short look-back period for past practice in addition to the fair and reasonable rates. The market response to both programmes has been overwhelmingly positive, and this is a clear indication that our approach is working.

What has been the highlight of your career to date, and what makes it stand out? 

While I can think of many successful licensing deals, business ventures and licensing programmes that could be considered highlights of my career, what I truly value and cherish are the friendships and relationships of mutual respect that I have been fortunate to have over the years. Rain or shine, you know you can always depend on them. Genuine partners in business are few and far between, but when you find them, it makes the journey so much more worthwhile.

In May 2024, Tulip announced the launch of its new licensing programme, representing the largest-ever combined portfolio of lithium-ion battery patents. What impact do you expect this to have on the global battery landscape, and how is it shaping the future of joint licensing? 

Tulip’s licensing programme is designed to lower the barriers for companies looking to develop and improve battery technologies and to stimulate an even faster rate of innovation in battery performance.  While it is still being introduced to the industry, it is well on its way to being embraced and leading to a period of IP stability in the field that benefits manufacturers and customers alike.

From a licensing perspective, Tulip brings the benefits of joint licensing activities to a relatively new area and beyond the usual domain of industry standards and SEPs. And the Tulip model paves the way for additional licensing opportunities across multiple industries, each fully rewarding innovation and allowing implementers to focus on growth.

Patent pools and joint licensing models are rapidly expanding into new verticals. At a time of such change, what are the greatest risks and opportunities that potential licensees should be aware of?

With many new verticals, patent ownership is very fragmented so acquiring significant portions of the rights an implementer needs means that an impractical number of licences are required. Patent pools like Opus or joint licensing programmes like Tulip simplify access to these necessary patent licences. They mitigate litigation risk, promote innovation and give licensees the rights they need through one-stop shops that were previously unavailable. Pools and joint licensing programmes bring transparency and efficiency, but there are always those that believe it is better to hold out and let others pay for the innovations from which they are benefitting. These companies risk paying more in the long run if an action is filed against them or missing early licensee terms. The patent owners in pools and joint licensing programmes are committed to protecting their initiatives and will enforce their patent rights when they have to so that all members of the pools or joint licensing programmes, licensees or licensors, are fully protected.

You previously told IAM that innovators’ cautious attitudes towards disclosing their technology was damaging the international licensing landscape. Two years later, has the dial moved on this, and what are you doing to promote transparency in the industry? 

In the past 20 years we have witnessed a monumental shift in how patents are perceived and respect towards them because of the many limitations that have been imposed on enforcement. Little has changed in the past two years. We are still in a situation where innovators ask if it is worth filing patents or better just to keep innovations secret as know-how.  At Tulip and Vectis, we continue to develop new ways to create value for companies that have led innovation in specific areas. The strategies we employ provide them with returns that justify continued innovation and patent filing to protect their inventions, and in doing so, make their innovations public to the benefit of society at large. 

What is the biggest challenge facing licensors in Europe right now, and why? 

Licensing is a truly international activity. Spanning the Americas, Asia-Pacific and Europe, it is difficult to think of it in a regional way.  Having said that, the most important aspect for licensors is the ability to use their patent rights efficiently, and the only effective way to use a patent is to enforce it. So, inevitably, enforcement is a central topic for licensors. In Europe everybody is looking at the UPC, which has the potential to take the crown from the United States as the most highly regarded enforcement jurisdiction. The challenge for licensors is to understand how and when they can make best use of the UPC and for Europe not to undercut itself by hamstringing the UPC system with excessive and unworkable regulation.

What is the biggest challenge that you have overcome in the Vectis Opus patent pool?

When you launch any pool or programme, you typically have a chicken-and-egg situation with prospective licensees often reluctant to sign up until their peers do. With Opus, we have addressed hesitancy by offering compelling discounted terms to those companies that join early. These discounts were welcomed by pragmatic companies that know signing early means lower costs and lower litigation risk. They recognised that audio patents owned by world-renowned audio pioneers will stand up to scrutiny if tested and that they will need to take a pool licence one way or another, so better to get on board early and take advantage of the time-limited incentives. NTT recently joining the Opus Pool as a patent owner further shows the success of this approach.

In general, how do you ensure success with patent pools and joint licensing models?

As administrator, you must seek balance between licensors and licensees. Licensors need to be assured that their patents are being used to encourage and protect innovation and they want to see the pool grow and attract more licensors. Licensor return on investment is also very important. They need to see a return on the financial and human capital they invest in a programme. Launching a pool is not dissimilar to starting a new company and growing the business over time. Stakeholder alignment, business plan strategy, investors and hard work are all vital elements. Mistakes can happen at the early stages, so it is important to know how to quickly pivot and go in new directions when required. As the pool grows, the challenge of reaching consensus among all stakeholders also grows.  You need a corporate mindset and people skills to point the way to success and have all parties follow your lead.

From a licensee perspective, the pool or joint licensing programme has to offer real value. It does this through:

• reduced transaction costs;
• reduced royalty rates;
• reduced discrimination;
• more transparency;
•  more certainty regarding essentiality when it’s an SEP pool;
•  accelerated adoption of technologies, which is better for society as well; and 
• reduced litigation costs. 

Every licensee has different needs, and it is important to listen when they explain the peculiarities of their vertical and/or business model so that you can accommodate their individual requirements even when bound by FRAND obligations or other constraints unique to the programme. This requires finesse during negotiations and a deep appreciation for the motivations and business of your prospective and current licensees.

What new trends are emerging in patent licensing?

It is great to see that patent pools and joint licensing programmes are gaining more traction and penetrating new industries. Their increasing popularity and success is a testament to the value they bring to both licensors and licensees and I expect this trend to continue as once disparate fields continue to intersect creating new industries.

As cellular technology licensing has now settled into a regular cadence of term renewal, the focus is shifting to the next big arenas for large patent battles. Opus operates in a long-established audio-codec space that continues to regenerate as codecs remain central to new forms of entertainment and their associated hardware devices. Tulip covers the battery technology that is increasingly pervasive after electric vehicles have thrust it into the spotlight like never before. With the battle for technological supremacy heating up in areas like robotics, AI, space and transportation, patents will be central to deciding who the winners and losers are and shaping the future as they have done for centuries.

It is also encouraging that case law continues to bring clarity to the global FRAND debate. For example, in the InterDigital v Lenovo UK Court of Appeal FRAND decision earlier this year, the court found that FRAND licence terms should cover all past sales and not be subject to limitation periods, and interest should be charged on all past sales reflecting the time value of money. It also reaffirmed that comparable license analysis is far more reliable than a top-down approach. Elsewhere this year, in ACT v Oppo, the Supreme People’s Court in China ruled that an SEP licence agreement should be reached within a reasonable period of 12 to 18 months. It also set out clear obligations for implementers in SEP licence discussions – for instance, an implementer that fails to provide sales data of the infringing products without just cause would be considered at fault. 

In every jurisdiction, new guidance from the courts continues to emerge and this is helping to unblock licensing discussions and prevent unnecessary litigation. My hope is that this clarification process continues to bring us to a point where both licensors and licensees can reach an agreement far more efficiently than they can today.