Q&A: Creating value through IP asset management and valuation
January 2016 | SPECIAL REPORT: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
Financier Worldwide Magazine
FW moderates a discussion on creating value through IP asset management and valuation between Michael J. Dansky at Berkeley Research Group, LLC, Dr James Dimech-DeBono at FTI Consulting, Alan Cox at NERA Economic Consulting, and Scott Weingust at Stout Risius Ross, Inc.
FW: Given that intellectual property (IP) can be the most valuable assets a company owns, do you believe too many companies fall short in terms of managing and maximising those assets?
Weingust: I believe that many IP owners would benefit from focusing more resources and time on managing IP in an effort to maximise the value of these assets. In particular, while brand-driven companies often do a very good job managing their trademark portfolio, many technology-driven companies would be better off by making greater efforts to manage the patents and trade secrets that protect the technologies they’ve developed. More specifically, from my experience many technology-driven companies fall short in terms of having a comprehensive inventory of the assets they own and many do not explicitly develop and implement IP strategies that are integrated with broader business strategy. Further, too many companies talk about owning trade secrets but have not developed formal confidentiality policies and security measures to be sure that these important assets are, in fact, kept secret by limiting access to only those that need it.
Dimech-DeBono: IP is increasingly becoming a larger proportion of a company’s balance sheet, and as we transition from a global economy based on physical assets to one based on information, IP grows in value. More and more companies are using IP to differentiate themselves from competitors and to gain crucial edges in crowded marketplaces. It would seem evident that companies should strive to maximise their IP assets, however there are behaviours that prevent this. Some companies fail to integrate their IP managers – either legal counsel or the R&D team – into conversations about strategy. The information disparity in different areas of a company can often lead to the promotion of an inconsistent or inefficient strategy for dealing with IP which prevents companies from leveraging their investments. Companies often believe in using IP as a tool to prevent competition. This can be the correct decision as to how best to use IP but, as every IP asset is unique, companies should consider their approach for each asset in their portfolios. In particular, companies often fail to identify when it would be more profitable to engage in either licensing or joint ventures to maximise the value of their IP, rather than using it merely to prevent competition.
Cox: IP is certainly an important component of company value. Economic studies demonstrate that intangible assets make up at least half of US firms’ value. In some industries this proportion is as high as 80 percent. Not only do firms devote substantial resources to investment in intangibles, including IP, the financial markets also perceive these assets as being extremely valuable. In my experience, companies do pay considerable attention to managing their portfolios and determining the value of their IP. They do, of course, need to make compromises and trade-offs between the costs and the benefits of appraising IP. While the benefits may be considerable, valuation of intellectual property assets is notoriously difficult and often involves complex and expensive analysis. The problem is exacerbated by the lack of an active market for IP assets which makes it difficult to find comparable IP as a basis for valuation.
Dansky: Companies really have to know who they are and how their industry operates to determine just how important IP assets and their requisite management are to their current and future business. Part of this self-assessment is not only ‘if’ IP is important to the company, but also the type of IP. It’s not all about patents. Often, other intangible assets are the most important company assets. In many situations these other IP assets are neither understood nor managed in an effective way. Non-patent intangible assets reside in both the minds and hearts of their employees and throughout the operational assets and aspects of the business. They are often not defined, catalogued or managed in a well-thought and effective way. The risks are that these assets are not well understood or protected and can essentially walk out the door at any point and move directly to competitors. Even simple movement and changes in personnel can render them almost fallow because they are not transferred to incoming employees in critical jobs. This is an area where I see a need across the spectrum of industries and companies that needs a lot of work. On the positive side, there is ‘C-suite’ recognition of the importance of patents—something for which those of us in the industry have been fighting for many years. That is, determining in a strategic way what kind of ‘invention’ is needed by the company one, three, five, 10 years down the road, then organising the technical and R&D effort towards those goals, and finally determining what should be patented, what should be kept as a trade secret and even what should be disclosed to the public.
FW: Why is it important for companies to put a value on their IP assets? What valuation techniques can they deploy to achieve this?
Cox: Recognition of the value of a firms’ intellectual property can have a profound impact on management decisions. A recent notable example is provided by Nortel. In bankruptcy, a subset of its IP assets were auctioned off for $4.5bn. A former member of the board of that company has said that, had the company recognised the value of its patents, a different decision may have been made regarding its bankruptcy. Recognising the value of IP involves determining its best use and the income derived from that use. Such information allows a company to make better decisions about how to deploy its IP for production and what IP it could more usefully licence or sell to other companies. As a result of such exercises, companies frequently rationalise their holdings of intellectual and real assets and adjust the proportion of their revenues derived from licensing and enforcing their IP.
Dimech-DeBono: IP valuations are useful in a variety of contexts for companies. Commercially, IP valuations can be used for M&A activity, in negotiations for selling or licensing IP rights, or for use when using IP as collateral for loans. IP valuations can also be useful to a company to help inform strategic decisions or for regulatory, tax or transfer pricing purposes. Valuing IP can be a tricky proposition due to the unique qualities of each IP asset. However, there are several commonly accepted methods available for practitioners. In the initial stages of development and prior to its commercialisation, an IP asset can be valued on a cost basis – either the historical cost of the IP or the cost to replace it. However, this method does not consider the innovation that characterises IP assets. IP can also be valued on a market basis, using recent transactions in comparable IP to determine a value. However, as with the cost basis, this does not take into account the unique qualities of each IP asset. For valuing fully commercialised IP, a number of methods can be used. The relief from royalty method calculates the costs that a company avoids incurring as a result of owning a piece of IP rather than leasing it. However, this method of valuation is sensitive to the royalty rate and sales forecasts used in the calculation. The multi-period excess-earnings method calculates the future cash flows attributable to the whole business and the future cash flows attributable to all assets other than IP. The difference between the two is the value of the IP assets. However, this valuation is sensitive to the cash flows used and does not calculate the precise value due on each IP asset in a portfolio. Finally, risk-adjusted net present value (rNPV), similar to a discounted cash flow valuation, is a method used to assess the future cash flows attributable to the IP asset but incorporates an element of risk into each cash flow.
Dansky: It is important for companies to know what they have in terms of assets and the value of those assets, and to understand what drives the value of those assets. Accounting and similar methods can give you a value of your hard assets, your inventory and even many of your other tangible assets in a gross sense. You can also go to a variety of sources to figure out what it would cost to replace tangible assets – they can readily be made, replaced and acquired. There is good market data that will tell you what they are worth. The public markets tell a company what it is worth through its stock price, which conceptually is the discounted sum of its expected future cash flows, if you believe the capital asset pricing model. But IP is a different animal. That market does not tell you what it is worth, unless you want to know how the market views the value of all of your intangibles in a gross sense. There is the view today that approximately 80 percent of the value of a technology-oriented company is related to its intangible value, as opposed to its tangible assets. A large portion of that intangible value relates to IP. So if you are company that is focused on managing and leveraging your most valuable assets, is it important for you not only to identify in a very concrete way what those assets are, but also which ones are valuable and the quantum of their value, at least in relative terms.
Weingust: As a practical matter, valuation supports many strategic and transactional aspects of businesses that own IP assets. For instance, valuations of IP are regularly performed to support transactions related to IP asset purchases and sales, licensing-in and licensing-out, joint ventures, mergers and acquisitions, and other collaborations where IP assets are an important component of value. IP valuation further supports various tax strategies and certain financial reporting requirements. Finally, IP valuation often supports day-to-day strategic decision-making within organisations. For example, the decision of whether a patented technology should be developed in-house versus whether something similar should be licensed or otherwise acquired will depend, in part, on the value of the IP related to each option. When valuing IP, the analyst will typically consider the three basic valuation approaches – cost, market and income – and will further consider many different methodologies within these approaches. Ideally, the valuation analyst will try to implement multiple methods to ‘zero in’ on the appropriate value estimate but, on a case-by-case basis, the analyst will often find that a number of the methods may be precluded due to a lack of reliable data or because the facts and circumstances of a particular valuation do not support their use.
FW: What are the main challenges for companies looking to generate value from their IP assets and strengthen their portfolio? In broad terms, how can they leverage value from their IP?
Dansky: Portfolio strengthening must come from both internal development and strategic patent and product line acquisition. The strategic IP company focuses on ‘inventing’ around its core capabilities and for complementary IP, looking to acquire necessary assets from others operating within their core competencies. The effective combination of these elements can establish a deep thicket around core IP-driven products. Strategic patenting to protect a core idea starts with building a patent portfolio around the core technology that covers not only what you do but also the product, service or market alternatives that could allow a competitor to operate in a parallel technology plane or work directly in your plane by skirting around your patents. It is often the follower and not the first to market inventor that is most successful when this kind of effective patent thicket is not developed.
Cox: Utilising IP to actually make a product or service can be a complex process, particularly in the industries that typify the high technology economy in which a single product can embody thousands of patents and other IP. Ownership of the IP that is used in these industries is often very fragmented and held by many companies located all over the world. Necessary or useful IP can be difficult to identify and find. Consequently, it is costly to arrange the necessary licences, purchases and other transactions that will allow manufacturers adequate freedom to operate. Organising standards, pooling patents and negotiating bilateral licensing agreements are all costly and time-consuming endeavours, thus reducing the value of the relevant IP. The value of IP can be further degraded by the possibility that, despite all efforts, a manufacturer may still be the target of claims that it is infringing IP after it has incurred the expense of bringing a new product to market.
Weingust: There are myriad challenges for companies and IP managers looking to generate value from their IP assets. The problem is typically not that corporate IP leadership fails to understand the goals and best practices of IP management. Rather, the challenge to IP leadership is implementing the best possible IP management processes relating to creating and acquiring, managing and protecting, and extracting value from IP assets within the constraints of their particular organisation. IP leadership has to work within a budget, organisational structure and corporate culture to craft processes that support the entire IP lifecycle. Many companies often do not provide their IP management leadership with appropriate monetary and human resources to acquire and/or implement tools, systems, services and processes necessary to develop the strongest possible IP portfolio and maximise IP value.
Dimech-DeBono: Companies are increasingly treating their IP like financial assets. By considering the future cash flows of the IP asset at each stage of development, companies can maximise the expected value of their IP assets by creating core strategies designed to take advantage of the unique qualities of each individual IP asset. The basic exploitation of IP undertaken by companies usually involves either selling or licensing their IP in order to generate revenue. As with financial assets, companies can also use their IP assets as security in order to obtain loans. Companies should develop an active IP strategy including the effective exploitation of the company’s IP assets through either sales or licensing, and the continual process of seeking and evaluating new IP assets, joint ventures or strategic alliances. In particular, companies should focus on developing new IP assets which can be used as a basis for negotiation when working with clients or competitors. Companies may enter into strategic alliances with competitors to cross-utilise IP assets in order to reduce costs. Internally, companies should foster links between their R&D activities and management. By ensuring that the R&D function is aligned with management’s expectations of how IP assets should be managed or what new developments are needed to develop business, the company can effectively manage its IP and ensure that the company can exploit its IP assets as effectively as possible.
FW: In your opinion, how have changing legal, economic and technological conditions impacted on efforts to manage corporate IP assets?
Weingust: Corporate IP management has become increasingly challenging over the last several years for a variety of reasons. Focusing on the US, there have been many legislative and judicial events that have occurred in the last several years that have significantly affected IP value and, as a result, IP management. For example, from a legislative perspective, the America Invents Act (AIA) that was passed in 2011 was arguably the most substantial revision to patent law in over 60 years. The AIA introduced a number of changes to patent law that impacted patent value such as first-to-file rules and post-grant challenges such as inter partes review. It is also clear that new case law introduced by the Federal Circuit and the Supreme Court over the last several years has affected damages and patent values outside of the courtroom. For example, injunctions have become more difficult to secure, certain rules relating to subject matter eligibility for patenting have changed, and patent infringement damages have generally decreased reflecting apportionments associated with the entire market value rule and other newly introduced damages case precedent. These legislative and judicial events impact some combination of the expected revenues, costs or risks associated with existing patents and those patents that will be obtained in the future. Altering any of these variables will, other things being equal, cause patent value to change, which will affect management strategies.
Dimech-DeBono: New regulations around base erosion and profit shifting (BEPS) have changed the way that companies structure their revenue-generating IP assets. Previously, companies could structure the way in which they received royalties in order to operate in a tax efficient manner. However, new regulation will allow authorities to challenge the arrangements made by companies in order to reclaim any tax potentially due on profits that have been diverted by structuring IP in such a way. Another recent phenomenon, ‘IP trolling’, has had a negative impact on the management of assets. IP trolling is where a patent-owning firm does not use them to create value but rather makes its revenue by suing cash-rich companies for breaches of patent. This approach could potentially dis-incentivise innovation for fear of litigation, which is a costly and time-consuming process for companies to undertake. Recently, the signing of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) has caused a shift in the IP regulatory sphere, and will impact how companies manage their IP assets. This free trade agreement will tighten regulation around IP infringement, including an increase in copyright length and penalties, both civil and criminal for infringement. This regime will allow companies to protect their value-generating IP from infringement.
Cox: We have already discussed the complicated IP landscape in high technology industries. The costs of utilising IP can sometimes be reduced through standard-setting and pooling agreements and other associations among companies. In the United States and other jurisdictions, competition regulators have refrained from unnecessarily interfering with these arrangements. On the other hand, aggressive patent litigation in the past decade, coupled with the possibility of very high awards or early injunctions, has created significant problems for many manufacturers. The possibility that a previously unknown patent or other IP may be asserted against a manufacturing firm’s product clearly increases the risk and uncertainty of investing in product development. Such risks increase the costs of investing in the introduction of a new product, tending to inhibit such investment. Adding to these costs is the potential need to retaliate against lawsuits for alleged IP infringement, lawsuits which may be launched by firms in entirely different industries. One method of protecting against such lawsuits is to maintain an inventory of patents unrelated to your product but which you can assert against companies that sue you. Or it may be necessary to pay firms that provide defensive aggregation services, such as RPX.
Dansky: I think there have been profound changes in the last 10 years in the environment relating to IP assets. Many changes have been driven by changes in the law in the US which have changed the very nature of the IP asset, particularly patents. We have entered into essentially the world of the compulsory licence. You can get money damages, but you cannot stop the infringement in most cases. The patent system has changed to give infringers additional tools to invalidate your patents through the America Invents Act and the PTAB. This has drawn out the time and costs of asserting your patents and increased the risk of losing your patent rights. So the fundamental basis of what it means to own a patent has changed and consequently companies have to look at their patents in a different light. This understanding needs to find a way into how you strategically manage your patents, what you decide to patent, what you might keep as a trade secret and what you might just donate to the public to make sure you have freedom to operate. So for those responsible for managing IP assets, the complexity has increased multi-fold and an understanding of not just the technical but also the legal, commercial and political is a necessary tool.
FW: What role can analytics and competitive analysis play in assessing outside threats to a company’s IP portfolio? To what extent do integrated IP applications assist in this regard?
Cox: There are now available a number of databases of patents that include the entire text of all granted patents and applications published by all the major patent offices. These databases also have detailed information on the inventors, ownership history, technology, backward and forward citations and other statistics. Such databases can be, and are, used by IP managers to identify competitive threats from current and potential competitors who own patents that may be critical to their company’s freedom to operate. They can also be used to identify potential areas suitable for protective patent purchases. This data can also be rapidly compiled to give information on the number of forward citations and other indicia of value of a large number of patents.
Weingust: Analytic tools are available that can provide a great deal of value to an organisation in regard to analysis of competitive threats. In particular, using analytical tools to develop an understanding of competitors’ patent portfolios can provide insights into the technology areas and, in turn, product areas that are the focus of competitors’ research and development activities. Such insights can assist a company to identify where it may wish to focus innovation and related patenting activities to be sure that it has a competitive response and does not get blocked from operating in an important and up-and-coming technology or product area.
Dansky: I am not a believer in automated tools for valuation. I have never seen any of the offerings be effective. However, there are tools that can aid in searching patent databases and do keyword searching and natural language searching, and others that allow for citation analysis and new tools for prior art searching and the like. People can build various analytics which are essentially data slice presentations which, if done right by skilled people, can give you some insight of where your portfolio has holes and where competitors have assets that might concern you. Many of the tools are not really that easy to use, and to get value from them you need to have IP-savvy people at the controls. There is no replacing, in my opinion, rolling up your sleeves and reading patents. Competitive analysis needs to be a full-time job for anyone who is managing a corporate IP portfolio and makes and sells products under its patents. Nothing could be more important than figuring out who your IP and product competitors are and understanding what they are inventing. Inventing ‘in front of’ competitors is a strategy that effective companies should undertake.
Dimech-DeBono: As global marketplaces become increasingly information driven, data analytics has become prevalent as a viable business tool. In the IP space, analytics can be used by companies to assess the strengths and weaknesses of existing IP assets in a particular market. Data analytics firms are now offering sophisticated information in regard to existing IP assets and allow customers access to detailed information about a single patent or a portfolio of patents. As a result, companies have developed techniques to monitor competitors. For example, companies monitor both the number of filings and evolution of filings in relation to a particular industry. This allows a company to monitor both its competitors, and any new entrants into the market, and also any technological advances. This information can also be used to assess the relative strengths and weaknesses of a competitor’s R&D team.
FW: Has there been any recent, high-profile IP-related litigation which has grabbed your attention? what lessons can we draw from the nature and outcome of these cases?
Dimech-DeBono: The obvious high-profile litigation is Apple v Samsung. Recently, Apple successfully appealed to the US Court of Appeals which ruled that Apple should have been able to grant an injunction to prevent Samsung from selling phones breaching Apple patents. This is notable as it was the first time that Apple has been granted an injunction to prevent Samsung infringing on its patents, and potentially means that other technology companies could seek injunctions to prevent competitors selling products infringing on their IP. Another recent case with potentially large ramifications is CLS Bank v Alice Corporation where the Appeals Court ruled that a patent containing just an abstract idea for software is invalid. The consequences of this have yet to fully develop, but as many software patents contain only the method, it is likely that there will be increased challenges on the validity of more patents in the future.
Dansky: There has been so much action in the patent litigation world in the last few years that it’s a full-time job to keep up with not only what is being decided but also what it means for companies. There have been tremendous efforts put in by many companies to change the patent litigation environment though actions at the District, Appeals and Supreme Courts and in the political arena. Some that have had profound impacts on the IP world and the economic value of IP include: EBay v. MercExchange, which fundamentally changed historical patent rights by removing the right to a presumed injunction for patents found to be valid and infringed; the Robart Decision in the Microsoft v. Motorola litigation which, among other things, made it ‘illegal’ to make an opening licence offer for Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) that was above some fairly arbitrary ‘RAND’ amount; and the Supreme Court Alice decision, which led to the invalidation and clearly a general decline in the value of software inventions. These decisions have had a profound impact on how patent litigation is conducted and how patents are valued, and a degradation of large bodies of patents owned by major technology companies around the world.
Weingust: I have to single out the Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank matter as a recent high profile case of particular interest. This case, considering its ramifications, may well be one of the most significant cases in recent years and it is an outstanding example of how judicial decisions can and do impact patent eligibility, patent validity and patent value. The case related to a computerised scheme for mitigating ‘settlement risk’ – the risk that only one party to an agreed-upon financial exchange will satisfy its obligation. Alice patented any computer implementation of this process as well as any computer systems containing program code that could carry out the method. A unanimous Supreme Court invalidated the patents because they claimed abstract ideas in violation of Section 101 of the US patent statute. The Court found that “mere recitation of a generic computer cannot transform a patent-ineligible abstract idea into a patent-eligible invention. Stating an abstract idea while adding the words ‘apply it’, is not enough for patent eligibility”. As a result of the Alice decision, many existing, granted software and business method patents are at great risk of being invalidated if challenged. In addition, since this decision, newly granted software and business method patents have significantly declined from pre-Alice levels. In US courts, motions to invalidate patents based on Section 101 arguments relevant to the Alice decision, are being granted a majority of the time. Of course, the effect of the Alice decision on patent value is potentially significant. Any company that has a software or business method patent that it believes is protecting its right to exclude others from competing, is producing licensing revenue or is the basis for infringement, may no longer have a patent that provides such benefits.
Cox: In a series of decisions in Seattle, Chicago and Shenzhen, courts have determined Fair Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) royalties for standard-essential patents (SEPs). Given the importance of standards, these decisions are likely to have a significant economic impact. The FRAND rates determined by courts in these cases are much lower than those sought by the plaintiffs. Related decisions from Japan, the European Court of Justice and China have arguably curbed the ability of owners of SEPs to impose injunctions on alleged infringers. Some commentators claim that such policies and rates will diminish the incentives to develop new IP and to participate in standards. On the other hand, the threat of injunctions by owners of SEPs may have had the effect of slowing the introduction of new standard-compliant products. Certainly, the narrowing of what is understood by the term FRAND reduces uncertainty and improves the climate for investment in the manufacture of standard-compliant products.
FW: What final piece of advice can you offer to companies looking to assess, quantify and grow the value of their IP assets? Is this area set to become even more important in the years ahead?
Dansky: Despite the challenges in extracting value in the market from one’s patents in a cash-flow sense and a weakening of the patent right, companies and inventors continue to file for patents at a rapid pace. My advice to companies is to continue to rapidly patent appropriately in their core business areas, anticipate where your markets and products will be going and strive to build a strong patent position to protect your products and markets because the pendulum on patent rights can readily swing in the other direction as it has through many cycles in my 30 years in the industry. Companies should also file for patents in emerging markets, and in particular in China. I believe having patents in China will be important in the years to come as the China legal patent regime develops. Currently, China and many other emerging markets are net importers of technology. But I believe that China strives to and will become a net exporter of technology and will realise that protecting their IP rights and those of others will become much more important, and their legal regime will evolve with these changes. Quality patents will always be important and valuable for both laying down protection for businesses and also in defending yourself from competitors and those that may see value in trying to interrupt their business success.
Weingust: I think that IP will continue to grow in importance as innovation continues to compound at impressive rates. The rewards from successful IP management can be enormous but the consequences of failure can be costly, even disastrous. When it comes to IP management, my advice to business leaders is to invest in the tools, people and processes to improve and maximise IP management outcomes and, as a result, increase IP value within the organisation. Additionally, IP management best practices are highly specific to each organisation and successful IP management activities must be refined on an ongoing basis. The processes and systems have to be regularly updated reflecting evolving corporate needs and resources, new legislation, recent court decisions and other factors. Consequently, IP management challenges will be ongoing but so too will be the rewards if done properly.
Cox: Companies can enhance their profitability and defend their competitive positions by developing a comprehensive set of IP assets, including patents, trade secrets, know-how, trademarks and trade dress. at the same time, many companies are in a position to use IP to extend their capabilities to provide products and services that complement their core offerings. For example, they can provide software as well as circuit designs, or applications as well as operating systems. Extending into complementary products and services also allows companies to appropriate more of the value that is associated with providing their core capabilities. It is important to remember, however, that not all of these IP assets need to be developed internally. Indeed, it is often more efficient to turn to markets, where they exist, to purchase and licence IP.
Dimech-DeBono: Companies should understand that IP is a valuable asset that they can leverage in order to generate returns and not something to ignore in corporate strategy. In this day and age, it is crucial that companies actively seek opportunities to maximise the value of their IP assets. As IP becomes an increasingly larger part of a company’s balance sheet, companies that can utilise potentially under-appreciated assets will differentiate themselves from competitors.
Michael J. Dansky leads BRG Capstone’s Boston office and is a leader of BRG Capstone’s Intellectual Property practice. He has more than 30 years of experience in IP valuation, licensing and intellectual property transactions, and dispute resolution. He was a senior executive for Amoco, Xerox and Polaroid with responsibility for strategically managing the creation and licensing of IP portfolios and new company creation, and was the corporate lead on strategic transactions involving mergers, acquisitions and divestitures. He can be contacted on +1 (617) 342 7251 or by email: email@example.com.
Dr James Dimech-DeBono is a senior managing director in FTI Consulting’s Economic and Financial Consulting segment in EMEA. Dr Dimech-DeBono’s focus is on the financial services sector with a particular emphasis on risk management and the valuation of complex assets. He has more than 25 years of advisory experience, working with clients ranging from banking institutions to investment managers and regulators in the areas of valuation, risk management and hedging. He can be contacted on +44 (0)20 3727 1731 or by email: firstname.lastname@example.org.
Dr Alan Cox is chair of NERA’s Global Intellectual Property Practice. He holds a Ph.D. in Economic Analysis and Policy from the University of California at Berkeley and an M.A. in Economics from the University of British Columbia. Dr Cox has testified in Federal and state courts on intellectual property issues in the semiconductor, biotechnology, telecommunications and other industries. He can be contacted on +1 (415) 291 1009 or by email: email@example.com.
Scott Weingust leads the Intellectual Property Valuation practice at Stout Risius Ross, Inc. (SRR). He has over 19 years of experience providing consulting services primarily in the areas of intellectual property valuation, damages and licensing. Mr Weingust has provided testimony as a damages and valuation expert in intellectual property-related litigation and has valued intellectual property assets for a variety of purposes including transactions, tax issues, financial reporting, strategic decision-making, raising capital and many others. He can be contacted on +1 (312) 752 3388 or by email: firstname.lastname@example.org.
© Financier Worldwide