AIPPI Report: The emerging role of IP business finance

The AmeriKat particularly likes the taste of Andrew Jackson
While the AmeriKat was busy preparing for an afternoon in court, her firm was equally busy hosting the first post-Congress AIPPI event in the UK.  Allen & Overy's cavernous lecture theatre welcomed the guest of honor, Tony Clayton, Chief Economist at the UK Intellectual Property Office (IPO), who entertained the audience on a topic much-neglected by us IP litigators - the role of IP in business finance.  The AmeriKat is indebted to her colleague, Chandni Sood, who took a thorough note of what she understands were stellar proceedings.  Over to Chandni:
"Tony described that having joined the IPO about four years ago to provide economic evidence to the Hargreaves’ Review of the UK IP framework in 2011, it became evident that there was a gap between the IP world and the financial markets. 
With British businesses spending billions each year creating assets which can be protected by IP rights, it is clear that significant value is placed on IP in a company’s investment. This topic has been a key priority for the IPO in recent years.  Work on this subject to date demonstrates the underlying importance of IP investment to the UK economy.  For a recent summary, see the IPO's commissioned report published in November 2013 entitled “Banking on IP” (see the AmeriKat's summary here).  
For firms to grow their business potential and invest in IP assets (without relinquishing control), they need to borrow. Using IP assets to secure this financing for growth can prove difficult as such assets are considered intangible investments. Tony therefore explained the concept of knowledge investment by firms for future returns, in areas such as R&D, designs, business workplace skills, reputation/brands, software and creative works.

It was recognised that most firms do not treat this expenditure as investment in company accounts. Although software and creative works can be counted as investment in company accounts (and R&D is also counted from 30 September 2014 raising UK GDP by £17bn), designs and workplace skills are too complicated to define and quantify, and are thus currently excluded.

Facing this challenge, the IPO attempted to define and quantify this investment by separating tangible assets (such as vehicles, machinery and computer hardware etc.) from intangible assets. Within British businesses, it was found that the share of intangible investments was larger than tangible investments (this trend was also seen globally in Scandinavia and the Netherlands).

However, most intangible assets are detached from the financial markets. As they are generally not reflected in company accounts and are hard to value, it is difficult to secure financing from financial institutions using these assets as collateral. This poses significant challenges - over two-thirds of a business’ investment is in its IP rights (namely software and R&D). It is therefore unsurprising that investment in British businesses is constrained. 
Research results
The IPO has been approached by firms who found the lack of readily available finance to be a key problem. The IPO therefore commissioned consultants to conduct research and 60-65 interviews were conducted with key suppliers.

As a result of this research, it was found that equity finance is currently growing in the UK.  However, thiss eventually leads to an entrepreneur “exit” and lost IP value (especially through foreign ownership). It was also found that credit availability did exist – banks were willing to fund companies if equity finance was also available but the problem was getting banks to understand IP and correctly assess the value of the assets. On the other hand, the real difficulty for firms was explaining to potential lenders how IP will service loans, especially as lenders made it clear that their credit must be repaid, and that ideally, they wish to own the business and not the IP.

As recognised by the Head of Investment Banking at Deutsche Bank, it is clear that if a bank wants to lend, transparency is key. It is important to know what the asset is, who owns it and what the value is. Therefore data must be created first and in turn, this will make the asset more visible.

IPO work
The IPO’s Action Plan for 2014 consists of four key strands: 
• to build awareness – for both firms and financial institutions thus encouraging the understanding of IP as an asset;
• better tools and templates – building on existing good practice allowing businesses to communicate what they have and how it is secured;
• risk mitigation – examining insurance approaches for IP (as banks want the confidence that their loan will be repaid); and
• developing IP markets – requiring good information (both data and analytics). 
Global picture
It is not just the UK that faces these challenges.  The Singaporean government’s objective is to create an “IP trading hub” by providing IP valuation training and government support for insurance guarantees. Taking this one step further, China aims to embed the IP system in business practice making it an inherent part of doing business generally. China has also implemented a government backed loan guarantee fund (locally based) which has had low failure rates thus far.
In the US, the US Patents and Trademarks Office (USPTO) is seeking to improve ownership data (making it easier to register a change).  The US Government has also recognised IP as a tier 1 asset. As a result, auctions and trading platforms are emerging and niche insurers are participating in hefty deals insuring branding and patent portfolios. 
Next Steps for IPO 
In the next three months, working groups are discussing solutions to achieve the above outcomes. Tools and templates will be brought in to create best practice and a common framework. By next spring, the aim is to (i) conduct market testing of these tools and templates in real time and (ii) collaborate with professional IP and finance valuation experts to learn from successful models.

In practice, the IPO faces a number of challenges. IP backed finance tends to be available for a short-medium term as the technology landscape can readily change with, for instance, the grant of another patent. Ownership of IP assets is also not 100% certain. There is also a huge information and knowledge gap. Financial institutions will find it harder to understand IP assets and value, for example, scope of monopoly and rights, whether the asset ends up embroiled in litigation or a confidential settlement etc. This uncertainty can lead to a greater risk which can deter a bank from taking a leap of faith when assessing IP assets against which loans can be made. The key question is what kind of data will provide financial institutions with a better understanding of IP assets and therefore the confidence to use them to provide the requisite financing? 
In relation to data, it was discussed that all valuation should currently be based on US data as this is currently better than European data due to figures published by the USPTO, company intelligence and valuation models based on analysing values reflected in prior M&A transactions in the US. Interestingly, there was also some lively debate at the end of the presentation on the role of patent trolls influencing the quality of data in the US.

The quality of data is thus a major issue in the UK. Transparency in markets depends on data (the more efficient the data, the greater the value). In order to gain more transparency, the UK may need to adopt the US approach by developing company intelligence and pooling resources to improve the quality of its data to enable a more thorough analysis. Once there is greater transparency with the litigation system in particular, any risks can be identified leading to confidence which can push financial institutions to take the plunge when using IP assets to provide loans."

AIPPI Report: The emerging role of IP business finance AIPPI Report:  The emerging role of IP business finance Reviewed by Annsley Merelle Ward on Thursday, October 02, 2014 Rating: 5


  1. You omitted the most important part of Tony's talk, i.e. the glowing reference to a report prepared by IPKat Jeremy.

  2. Whilst we all want IP to become more tradable and for 'data' to be developed that gives financial institutions more confidence in IP, perhaps it is not possible. 'Banking on IP' is trying to promote all of this, but that means it doesn't really ask the very difficult questions, such as the valuing of one IP changing as third parties acquire their own rights.

    Perhaps IP, or at least patents, will always be too complicated to be a fully tradable asset. This seems very similar to derivatives, where many people though they understand the risks and exposures and the nature of the products, but they didn't and no one could stop the financial crisis happening. The value of IP is too volatile, too complicated, too fixable to use as part of our financial system at the moment because investors and those that advise them would be too easily deceived into believing IP value was more reliable and stable than it is.

    Our financial system really does not need a very complex, technical, potentially unstable in value shiny new product that would make the entire system even more unstable. That is not fair to the mainstream whose livelihoods, level of taxes, quality of life, etc, depend on the economy doing well.

  3. All this is very interesting, but what strikes me is that so many people talk and write about this subject without raising the possibility that the best and most logical manner of bringing the business of finance to patents is perhaps to bring patents to the business of finance - in other words, to allow for patents for services. In a book published by Wolters Kluwer, "Patently Outdated: Patents in the Post-Industrial Economy - The Case for Service Patents" (sorry for the self-advertisement but I don't know of another work covering this topic) I have proposed that it is time that we put behind a patent system designed for and by the Industrial Revolution, and set a patent system for today's most valuable inventions. We do not live in a world of chimneys and warehouses, but in a world of ideas. So, why shouldn't inventors of practical and useful ideas, even if intangible - such as financial derivatives and insurance schemes - deserve the same protection that is accorded to inventors of tangible things? Inventions are no longer a matter of manufacture (that is, made by the hands). This was in 1624, when the Statute of Monopolies was enacted. The same rationale that is behind protecting new manufactures - promoting new inventions and thereby ensuring product differentiation and competition - recommends that service differentiation be likewise protected. Is this a bold proposition? Perhaps. But I believe it deserves some serious consideration. If we believe in the patent system, we should not leave it confined to the ideas that presided over it in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.


All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.