Rated Patent Exchange Weblog

1. We believe that published innovation without protection is harmful to society when substantial investment is necessary to bring the innovation to the market. Without the possibility of protecting the investment, society will not benefit from the innovation since investors will have no incentive to invest. Since innovation does not necessarily coincide with financial resources, projects and protection are often abandoned before products are brought to the market. Therefore, we have created a marketplace where published innovation may be transferred to an investor instead of being abandoned, thereby maintaining the possibility for society to benefit from an innovative idea.
2. We believe that valid patent assets have no objective value, but that the value of a valid patent asset depends on a specific patent proprietor. Therefore, potential investors in a patent asset may create substantial value by adding a patent asset to their business.
3. We believe that valuation methods for patent assets are only meaningful in view of a specific Holder or Seeker. Therefore, we do not try to suggest a monetary value of a asset, but trust in the professionals in the field who are capable of determining a value and a corresponding bid for Seekers and Holders.
4. We believe that the bidder valuing the patent asset highest bases his bid on the use of the patent to the highest benefit for society. Therefore, we believe that an auction-style transaction not only provides the highest price, but also the greatest benefit for society.
5. We believe that patent assets should not be kept without good reason and that selling a patent is not a sign of weakness, but a sign of competence. Therefore, we provide a marketplace where patents may be offered without incurring any costs, but with the possibility of generating value.
6. We believe that a Seeker does not need to explain who he is and why he buys. Therefore, we never disclose the identity of the unsuccessful Seeker.
7. We believe that value may be created by combining patent assets. Therefore, we provide an opportunity of Holders for checking regularily for valuable additions to their portfolios.
8. We believe that licensing programs based on a large portfolio may compare unfavorably to selling the patent assets. Therefore, selling patent portfolios which are difficult to license may be a more cost-effective long term alternative.
   
9. We believe that survivability of the patent asset is the only risk that matters for all investors alike since any other factor depends on the business purpose of the investor and cannot be determined indpendently.
10. We believe that the proceedings before the European Patent Office provide the best indication for survivability based on a high quality search and a high quality examination by an Examining Division of three examiners. Therefore, we analyse the EPO proceedings for an indication of the survivability.
11. We believe that the results of the EPO have a significance for the entire patent family. Therefore, we rate based on the EP-case but list the entire patent family.
12. We believe that Seekers should be able to proactively invite a Holder of a patent asset to selling a patent asset without disclosing the Seeker’s identity. Therefore, we provide the possibility of an intermediary service protecting the Seeker’s identity.
13. We believe that it is sometimes easier to convince a patent proprietor to sell a specific portion of a patent asset, either with regard to the subject matter or with regard to the territory. Therefore, we provide the possibility of inviting a proprietor to sell subject matter to be filed in a divisional application or single members of a patent familiy.
14. We believe that a transparent market is better than insider trading. Therefore, we invite the listing of patent assets in order to determine a realistic purchase price.

These are some of our principles and intentions. Where are we wrong?

In a recent study, the European Commission summarizes the results of detailed technical studies about the value of patents in Europe. As a conclusion, the study argues that to enhance the rate of utilization of patents the most effective strategy is to encourage the growth of technology markets. Other means, like reducing the patenting costs of small firms, may only induce them to patent less valuable, and hence less usable technologies, thereby aggravating rather than solving the problem.

The study concludes with regard to future policy that to encourage technology markets a first important policy target should be the reduction of transaction costs in technology trade. Tools for achieving this goal are believed to range from the creation of standard contracts for technology trade that reduce contractual ambiguities and the formation of intermediating companies that facilitate the match of buyers and suppliers, to actions that define standard prices for technologies according to their characteristics, as well as public information about technology prices.

European Commissioner for Internal Market and Services Charlie McCreevy has recently delivered a speech before the European Parliament Plenary Session on future action in the field of patents. The Commissioner referred to his previous consultation on the future of the patent system in Europe which threw up the need to create technology markets which would enable business to trade their IPR more successfully.

RPE uses the published European equivalent when defining a patent family. The reasons are simple. The EPO issues search results and patentability opinions very early. Therefore, it is very early possible to find out about major patentability and disclosure problems of an invention. Also, since three Examiners are ultimately involved in the examination of a case, major deviations from the examination standards are less likely. RPE uses the published results of the EPO for a rating identifying risks associated with a patent asset. The rating should not be confused with the value of the patents asset. Rather it should be considered as an indication for the survivability risks associated with the patent asset.