A HIDDEN CHALLENGE FOR FOSTERING INNOVATION: SELECTION OF IP VALUATION METHODS

Abstract

Purpose- There exist a large variety of sources on the definition or application process of the IP Valuation methods in literature, but there is still room for research for applications, related cases and preference criteria of each method as the theoretical and practical publications are very limited. Before starting IP valuation process there are some fundamental prerequisite steps such as setting the purpose of valuation, acquiring deep knowledge about the IP technology being valued, definition of the type of the process of patent application, defining TRL of IP and identifying the available data. To fulfil the gap of knowledge, the main aim of this study is to provide a case study for developing country context by exploring the current practices of patent valuation methods and determining the applicability, usefulness, challenges, necessities and advantages of IP valuation methods in IP ecosystems of technology.

Methodology- Within a qualitative research methodology which utilized the experiences of the IP valuation experts and professionals in technology transfer ecosystem in Turkey, Europe and USA, data were collected through structured in-depth interviews and Delphi Survey about level of expert knowledge, level of usage for different quantitative IP valuation methods, the purpose of using different IP valuation methods, challenges or benefits of applying the methods in patent valuation.

Findings- Findings revealed that replacement cost, reproduction cost, sales comparison, DCF, the 25 percent rule, comparable profit margin and RFR methods are widely preferred and known IP valuation methods which are priorly expressed by the respondent experts of this study. Advanced valuation methods are much rarely known and used when compared to previously stated methods. In order to make effective and well-supported estimates of an IP value, more than one valuation method which can be selected according to the objectives and different situations and qualitative parameters should be considered because of their indirect effect to the valuation.

Conclusion- The findings of this study show the whole necessities/inputs to apply valuation method in line with the literature. When an IP is valued, qualitative parameters should be considered because of their indirect affect to the valuation. In order to make effective and well-supported estimates of an IP value, more than one valuation method which can be selected according to the objectives and different situations and qualitative parameters should be considered because of their indirect effect to the valuation. This study is expected to help valuers that are in need of choosing most suitable valuation method for their IPs. 

Keywords

• Intellectual property,IP valuation,IP valuation methods,Delphi Method

References

1. Akins, R. B., Tolson, H., Cole, B. R. (2005). Stability of response characteristics of a Delphi panel: application of bootstrap data expansion. BMC medical research methodology, 5(1), 37.
2. Andriessen, D. (2004). Making sense of intellectual capital: designing a method for the valuation of intangibles. Routledge.
3. Anson, W., Suchy, D. (2005). Intellectual property valuations. a primer for identifying and determing value. Chicago Google Scholar.
4. Anson, W., Noble, D., Samala, J. (2014). IP valuation: what methods are used to value intellectual property and intangible assets. The Licensing Journal, 34(2), 1-5.
5. Başkale, H. (2016). Nitel araştırmalarda geçerlik, güvenirlik ve örneklem büyüklüğünün belirlenmesi. Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Hemşirelik Fakültesi Elektronik Dergisi, 9(1).
6. Brancheau, J. C., Janz, B. D., Wetherbe, J. C. (1996). Key issues in information systems management: 1994-95 SIM Delphi results. MIS quarterly, 225-242.
7. Carte, N. (2005). The maximum achievable profit method of patent valuation. International Journal of Innovation and Technology Management, 2(02), 135-151.
8. Cetin, M. (2017). Sınai mülkiyet haklarinda kurumlar vergisi ve KDV istisnası. Retrieved December 27, 2017, http://www.verginet.net/dtt/1/sinai-mulkiyet-haklarinda-KV-KDV-istisnasi.aspx

9. Çetindamar, D., Phaal, R., Probert, D. (2010). Technology management activities and tools. Palgrave-Macmillan.
10. Chiu, Y. J., Chen, Y. W. (2007). Using AHP in patent valuation. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 46(7-8), 1054-1062.
11. Cohen, J. A. (2011). Wiley finance: intangible assets: valuation and economic benefit. Hoboken, Wiley, USA.
12. Cromley, J. T. (2004). 20 steps for pricing a patent. Journal of Accountancy, 198(5), 31.
13. Culley, J. M. (2011). Use of a computer-mediated Delphi process to validate a mass casualty conceptual model. Computers, informatics, nursing: CIN, 29(5), 272.
14. Dalkey, N., Helmer, O. (1963). An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of experts. Management science, 9(3),458-467.
15. Dubiansky, J. E. (2006). An analysis for the valuation of venture capital-funded startup firm patents. BUJ Sci. & Tech. L., 12, 170.
16. European Commission. (2013). Final report from the expert group on IP valuation. Luxemburg: Publication Office of EU.
17. Ferguson, S. M. (2016). Technology commercialization transition from science to business. Published presentation of National Workshop on Innovation Promotion and Technology Transfer. Istanbul: September 6
18. Flignor, P., Orozco, D. (2006). Intangible asset & intellectual property valuation: a multidisciplinary perspective. ipthought. com.
19. Goddar M., Moser U. (2011). Traditional valuation methods: cost, market and income approach. In F. Munari, R. Oriani (Eds.), The Economic Valuation of Patents (1nd ed., pp.109-134). Massachusetts : Edward Algar.
20. Griliches, Z. (1998). Patent statistics as economic indicators: a survey. In R&D and productivity: the econometric evidence (p. 310). University of Chicago Press.
21. Grube, C. (2009). Measuring the immeasurable valuing patent protection of knowledge-based competitive advantages (p. 154). Gabler.
22. Guest, G., Namey, E., Taylor, J., Eley, N., McKenna, K. (2017). Comparing focus groups and individual interviews: findings from a randomized study. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 20(6), 693-708.
23. Hadzima, G. J. (2013). How to tell what patents are worth. Retrieved February 12, 2017, retrived from https://www.forbes.com/sites/forbesleadershipforum/2013/06/25/how-to-tell-what-patents-are-worth/#6fa20b7c6e5b
24. Hagelin, J. C. (2002). The kinds of traits involved in male—male competition: a comparison of plumage, behavior, and body size in quail. Behavioral Ecology, 13(1), 32-41.
25. Hamamcioglu V., Kahraman D. (2015, November). Patent degerleme. AIPPI Türkiye. Retrieved from https://www.aippiturkey.org/aippi-turkiye-bulteni-sayi-9/
26. Harhoff, D., Scherer, F. M., Vopel, K. (2003). Citations, family size, opposition and the value of patent rights. Research policy, 32(8), 1343-1363.
27. Hasson, F., Keeney, S., McKenna, H. (2000). Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique. Journal of advanced nursing, 32(4), 1008-1015.
28. Hayne, S. C., Pollard, C. E. (2000). A comparative analysis of critical issues facing Canadian information systems personnel: a national and global perspective. Information & Management, 38(2), 73-86.
29. Holt, K. F., O’Shaughnessy, B. P., Herman, T. B. (2005). What’s it worth?: principles of patent valuation.
30. Kranakis, E. (2007). Patents and power: European patent-system integration in the context of globalization. Technology and Culture, 48(4), 689-728.
31. Lagrost, C., Martin, D., Dubois, C., Quazzotti, S. (2010). Intellectual property valuation: how to approach the selection of an appropriate valuation method. Journal of Intellectual Capital, 11(4), 481-503.
32. Lanjouw, J., Schankerman, M. (2003). Enforcement of patent rights in the United States (pp. 143-179). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
33. Marr, B., Gray, D., Neely, A. (2003). Why do firms measure their intellectual capital?. Journal of intellectual capital, 4(4), 441-464.
34. Murphy, J. W., Orcutt, J. L., Remus, P. C. (2012). Patent valuation improvng decision making through analysis (1nd ed., pp. 5- 253). New Jersey: Wiley.
35. Narin, F., Noma, E., Perry, R. (1987). Patents as indicators of corporate technological strength. Research policy, 16(2-4), 143-155.
36. Okoli, C., Pawlowski, S. D. (2004). The Delphi method as a research tool: an example, design considerations and applications. Information & management, 42(1), 15-29.
37. Oriani R., Sereno L. (2011). Advanced valuation methods: the real options approach. In F. Munari, R. Oriani (Eds.), The Economic Valuation of Patents (1nd ed., pp.142- 152). Massachusetts: Edward Algar.
38. Parr, R. L. (2016). Royalty Rates for Medical Devices & Diagnostics. IPRA, Inc.
39. Parr, R. L., Smith, G. V. (2005). Intellectual property: valuation, exploitation, and infringement damages. John Wiley & Sons.
40. Pitkethly, R. (1997). The valuation of patents: a review of patent valuation methods with consideration of option based methods and the potential for further research.Research Papers in Management Studies/University of Cambridge Judge Institute of Management Studies
41. Putnam, J. D. (1997). The value of international patent rights.
42. Reilly, R. F. (2016). The market approach to valuing intangible assets. Retrieved from http://www.willamette.com/pubs/presentations3/reilly_valuation_strategies_may_june_2016.pdf
43. Reilly, R. F., Schweihs, R. P. (1999). Valuing intangible assets. McGraw Hill Professional.
44. RICS. (2015). Valuation of intellectual property rights. RICS guidance note, global 1st edition, May 2015, UK.
45. Singh, S., Paliwal, M. (2014). Exploring a sense of IP valuation for Indian SMEs. Int. J. Asian Bus. Inf. Manag. 5, 1, 15-36.
46. Smith, G. V., Parr, R. L. (2000). Valuation of intellectual property and intangible assets (Vol. 13, p.152). Wiley.
47. Sozer, M. N. (2008). Patent değerlemesi ve Türkiye’deki uygulamaları. Retrieved July 27, 2016, from http://www.teknolojitransferi.gov.tr/TeknolojiTransferPlatformu/resources/temp/DD8383E4-1C84-47CD-B54C-1D4673691B43.pdf;jsessionid=1F2DE15090256CDB3EE9427818C425C3
48. Speier, G. J., Gupta, R. (2015). Intellectual property valuation: asset strength approach (Evaluation of the Strength of an Asset Against the Commercial Technology Covered by the Asset).
49. Stevens, A. J. (2016). Intellectual property valuation manual for academic institutions (Report No. CDIP/17/INF/4). Geneva: Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP).
50. Taplin, R. (Ed.). (2004). Valuing intellectual property in Japan, Britain and the United States. Routledge.
51. The Canadian Institute of Charted Business Valuators (2011). OECD TP WP6: illustrative example of intangible asset valuation. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/tax/transfer-pricing/47426115.pdf
52. Trajtenberg, M. (1990). A penny for your quotes: patent citations and the value of innovations. The Rand Journal of Economics, 172-187.
53. Van der Drift, J. (1988). Statistics of European patents on legal status and granting data. World Patent Information, 10(4), 243-249.
54. Wang, M. Y. (2016, September). The valuation methods and applications for academic technologies in Taiwan. In Management of Engineering and Technology (PICMET), 2016 Portland International Conference on (pp. 1320-1327). IEEE.
55. World Intellectual Property Organization. (2012). National Workshop on Innovation Promotion and Technology Transfer: Ankara: Introduction to the Basic IP Valuation Issues [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from
56. The General Communiqué on the Amendment of the Corporate Tax. (2014) Official Gazette, 28918, 19 February 2014
57. Turkish Law of Intellectual Property Rights numbered 6769. (2016). Official Gazette, 29944, 10 January 2017
58. Turkish Secondary Law of Intellectual Property Rights numbered 551. (1995). Official Gazette, 22326, 27 June 1995
59. Url-1 , date retrieved 17.01.2018.
60. Url-2 , date retrieved 20.07.2017.
61. Url-3<(https://www.tubitak.gov.tr/tr/destekler/akademik/ulusal-destek-programlari/icerik-1513-teknoloji-transfer-ofisleri-destekleme-programi)>, date retrieved 08.01.2018.