WORLD INTELLECTUAL INTERNATIONAL … and Measuring the patents in a business context together ... cash-flow generation potential ... •Taking into account correlations among

1

Prof. Stefano ZambonChairman, WICI Europe

University of Ferrara – [email protected]

WIPO Headquarters, Geneva, 1-2 December 2010

WORLD INTELLECTUALPROPERTY ORGANIZATION

INTERNATIONAL NETWORK FOR SMALLAND MEDIUM-SIZED ENTERPRISES

Attributing Value to Corporate Intangible Capital: IC Reporting and Assessment

mailto:[email protected]

2

1) IC Reporting Case Studies (BankInter, Infosys, Brembo)

2) The Italian Institutional Project of Patent/IPR Assessment and Valuation

AGENDA

3

1. IC REPORTING CASE STUDIES

Intellectual Capital Report – Human Capital

4

Case Study – BankInter (Spain)

Intellectual Capital Report – Structural Capital

5

Case Study – BankInter

Intellectual Capital Report – Relational Capital

6

Case Study - BankInter

Human Capital Valuation• Infosys has used the Lev and Schwartz model to

calculate the value of Human Resources • The valuation is based on the present value of

future earnings of employees on the following assumptions:– Employee compensation includes all direct and indirect

benefits earned both in India and Overseas– The incremental earnings based on group/age have been

considered– The future earnings have been discounted at the cost of

capital of 12.18%7

Case Study – Infosys (India)

Human Capital Calculation

8

Case Study - Infosys

In Rs Crore 1 Crore = 10 Million

Balance Sheet including Intangibles & Human Capital

9

Case Study - InfosysIn Rs Crore 1 Crore = 10 Million

Brand Valuation• Infosys has used the brand-earning-multiple method

of Birkin mentioned in the book edited by John Murphy

• The methodology used is as follows: – Determine brand profits by eliminating the non-brand profits

from the total profits– Restate the historical profit at present value – Provide the remuneration of capital to be used for purposes

other than promotion of the brand – Adjust for taxes – Determine the brand strength or brand earning multiple

10


Brand Valuation

11

Case Study - InfosysIn Rs Crore 1 Crore = 10 Million

Economic Value Added

12


13

History – Brembo SpA (Italy)• Brembo is a group based in Curno (Bergamo)

north of Milan • It has been awarded by Forbes as among the first

20 companies with a lower billing than 1 billion $• Brembo production system consists of 16 plants• Beyond 5,300 employees• Operates in 22 countries, including Spain, UK,

Sweden, Poland, Brazil, Mexico, US, Japan, China• President and Owner: Mr. Bombassei & family• Brembo is listed on the Milan Stock Exchange

15

a simple business idea

Produce the most performing brakes in

the world

“If not a brake, it would be a precious sculpture in a museum of modern art.”

Gold Compass Award 2004

performance with STYLE

More than 5,300 employees working for the Group in 21 countries with 34 total plants and commercial sites

A “pocket”-size multinational

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

Italy EuropeNAFTA Rest of the world

employees

Multicultural …

181243

297353

454530 566

634678

712806

912

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

mill

ions

eur

o

Revenues

growing organically…

Commercial Vehicles

18%

Passenger Cars62%

Motorbike12%

Racing7%

Other1%

Germany25%

Italy24%

France6%

UK 7%

Asia4%

Nafta12%

Brazil4%

Other2%

Other EU16%

2007 – Revenues by application

2007 – Revenues by area

with balanced revenues distribution…

Relational Capital

STRUCTURE EVOLUTION OF VALUE REPORTING

Growth/ Renewal

Efficiency

Solidity

Structural Capital Human Capital

FROM

Growth/ Renewal Growth/ Renewal

Efficiency

Solidity

Efficiency

Solidity

Relational Capital

Sustainability

PerformanceStructural Capital

Sustainability

Performance

Human Capital

Sustainability

Performance

Financial Capital

Sustainability

Performance

TO

Synthesis

Improvement/GrowthIndicators

Strengthening/Maintenance Indicators

22

Performance• Revenues acquisition Index (existing customers) • Revenues acquisition Index (new customers)• % revenues from products developed in the last 5 years • Market share• Customer satisfaction Index

Sustainability• Corporate image (external) • Revenues concentration index • Most relevant Customer penetration index • % revenues invested in Marketing & Ext.

Communication

Relational Capital

23

Performance• % position coverage with internal growth • Index of multi-competence • Average level of leadership management• Level of trust • Management average age• People Education/School Index

Sustainability • % revenues invested in training • People satisfaction index• Multi-valence index • % female representation within management • Turnover (management) • Turnover (employees) • Turnover (blue collars) • Average seniority (management) • Average seniority (employees)

HumanCapital

24

Performance• N° patents (licensed/active) • Projects (Gate 7ok) / Technical Workforce • Global Productivity • Global TRS • Grievances severity index • PPM customers at km 0 • Internal scrap • % non-conformance costs/revenues

Sustainability• % revenues invested in R& D • Change proposals//active projects • Customer satisfaction (technical area) • % conformity (internal audits) • Corporate Image (internal) • Value Alignment• % revenues invested in internal communication

StructuralCapital

25

2. THE ITALIAN INSTITUTIONAL PROJECT OF PATENT/IPR

ASSESSMENT AND VALUATION(with the help of Dr Sara Giordani)

UIBM Project at a glanceNot looking specifically at a monetary value, but at a tool to collect, select, assess the merit of patent in a

comprehensive view of credit worthiness of the project

Looking at IP correlation with other business or project components for:

- Improving the analysis of credit worthiness, inpresence of IP;

- Improving risk management: risk mitigation logic;

- Locating and “reading” patents in a business,strategic and financial-economic context;

- Facilitating access to debt and venture capital;

- Considering feasibility of using patents as collaterals,guarantee, pledge.

Patents: from a legal path to an economic effectPatents: from a legal path to an economic effect

Invention

Patent Exploitation and Valuation

Legal context

Business Context

Patenting and Patent Grant

Management of IP and its role within the initiative, market, competitors...

n Industrial Property (R&D, technology, innovation) and surrounding intangibles (HR, Know-how...)

n Exploitation for creating economic value n Access to financing – Debt / Risk capital (investments /

funding)

Potential for creating future economic valuestrategy, operations

Investments / Financing

Business PlanIndustrial Property

Patents

Business Potential

Profits

In this ecosystem there are (at least) 3 elements for innovation and economic growth

Nurturing “enabling conditions”• Patent Systems shape today's

economic and business arena; are considered a fundamental component of development

• Patents represent a competitive resource and could be a competitive advantage

• Patents act as catalysts in the business context

• impact the revenues generating potential and capability of enterprises

-- Patent system / Institutions; Patent system / Institutions; -- Enterprises / Industry; Enterprises / Industry; -- Finance Sector / banksFinance Sector / banks

can affect business sustainability, business risk, can affect business sustainability, business risk, as well as the bottom lineas well as the bottom line

Key Key players:players:

Industrial Property

Finance: Banks, Investors

Innovative Enterprise

Financing projects / ventures backed–up

by IP

Create / Obtain / Transfer patents / IP

Enterprise Financing / Rating

The triangle: patent The triangle: patent –– business business –– financingfinancing

Linking IP to Finance:A Methodology to recognize the economic value in the business context and a Tool to communicate it

How a patent, or a patent portfolio, or a cluster of various IPRs could impact profitability (margins, bottom line, sustainability...)?

This is a question for the entrepreneur, who invests in IP for a project, his/her own enterprise /

venture...

The bank or the venture capitalist or the investor of a project / venture backed up

by IP, (too), would have a similar question

Need to codify and share information

• Decide what perspectives/ languages

• Look for commonalities• Involve practitioners • Get the stakeholders at the same

table

• Patent system / Institutions

• Enterprises / Industry

• Universities/ Research

• Financial Sector / banks

+ Interviews

An Italian Proposal:Institutional - UIBM Project Vision

... an instrument to support analysis, evaluation and appraisal according to

“a joint methodology shared among all by public administrations, the public and private research sectors, private enterprises and banks...

public institutions, economic-financial experts, intellectual property experts, patent attorneys, entrepreneurs, representatives of the Confederation of Italian Industries (Confindustria), of the

Universities and of the Italian Banking Association (ABI)

UIBM Project Objectives... elaborate and deploy an evaluation model with which to identify and locate the economic value of patents, namely the added value accruing to an enterprise from the exploitation of new patented technologies”.

Mapping and Measuring the patents in a business context together with the business plan for value extraction;

TARGET: instrument to support analysis, evaluation and appraisal according to a joint methodology for evaluating the relevance and solidity of the contribution of patents (intellectual property) to the

cash-flow generation potential

Patents as business tool and their relevance for decision of investing/financing

ChallengesThe approach should:• Balance complexity and standardization• Comply with qualitative and quantitative analysis• Measure relevance and merit• Be compatible with current evaluation practices

(e.g. of projects) in banks• Be aligned with other regulations/ definitions (e.g.

IAS, FASB, Basel II...)• Be a communication tool; comprehensible and

transparent

Memorandum of Understanding• Signed on October 21, 2008 by the Italian Ministry of

Economic Development, the Italian Banking Association, Confindustria (Italian employers' federation, main organization representing Italian manufacturing and services companies) and the Conference of Italian University Rectors

• The memorandum refers to the approach and methodology identified and developed by the working group, which was constituted in 2005 by the Ministry. It refers to a jointly developed framework for analysis and evaluation, which derives from the methodology and represents an application of the model.

• The parties agree to share the framework and to consider it as a common tool for analysis.

Value Extraction and Modeling

Exploitation and Valuation of patent(s)

Business Context

IP creation and management

Value Extraction

For evaluating usually we (would like to) refer to a

model in support of aqualitative / quantitative

analysis for understanding the contribution of the

patent(s) to the value creation

The Entrepreneur “acts” upon real exploitation

initiatives backed-up by IP, for improving the cash flows

(premium price, cost reduction, increased market

share, partnerships and contracts...)

Evaluation in a business contextRecognize the Value Drivers;

Identify, select and “read” the Value Driver Indicators in the • Value Creating Process (enterprise)

Recognize the Enablers;

Identify, select and “read” Opportunities & Threats in the • Value Creating Process in the Market (context)

Evaluation Process (model)

In the valorization and exploitation path, the patent/ IP can be viewed through the factors

that could have an impact on income1. Efficacy of protection2. Position of the invention(s) in the state of the art and in

the technology road-map3. Placement of the patent(s)/ invention(s) in the

enterprise: efficacy and efficiency of the exploitation4. Marketing of the patent(s) / invention(s) (market access

channels)5. Market (trend(s), readiness...)

Structuring the areas of analysis

IP Evaluation

IP StrategyIP Valuation

IP Assets

Patent Analysis/Valuation Framework: UIBM PlatformPatent Analysis/Valuation Framework: UIBM PlatformTechnical solution/

Technology PerspectiveDevelopment Phase

Time-to-marketCosts / Benefits

Substitutes/ alternativesLife Cycle

Required SkillsPatenting Level /

Intensity

External PerspectiveSectors Trend

Market GrowthGrowth Factors

Market SegmentsNeeds

Vulnerability

Invention/ Patent Perspective

State of the Art (cited)Evolution of Art (citing)Novelty, Inventive step

OwnershipGeographic and

Technological coverageApplications

Internal PerspectiveInventor(s)

Resources for developmentProduction

Evolution of the ideaComplementary Assets

Quality

Access to MarketCompetitors

Third Party RightsReference MarketRelevant Market

Sales/ distribution channel/ network

Clients/ Customers

PatentsPatents

IP Evaluation


IP Assets

DesignsDesigns

Other IPR (design) Analysis/Valuation FrameworkOther IPR (design) Analysis/Valuation FrameworkDesign-Model

PerspectiveDevelopment Phase

Time-to-marketCosts / Benefits-Values

Single/ Multiple productsSubstitutes/ alternatives

Life CycleCrowded Field

Registration Intensity

External PerspectiveSectors’ Trend Market GrowthGrowth Factors

Social values/ beliefsVulnerability

Registered Industrial Design Perspective

Prior DesignsNovelty, Individual

CharacterOwnership of Rights

Geographic andClass coverageApplications

Design FreedomInternal Perspective

Designer(s)/ FirmResources for exploitationProduction

Evolving of the ideaComplementary Assets

QualityOther IPs (e.g.

technology)

Access to MarketCompetitors

Third Parties’ RightsReference MarketRelevant Market

Marketing StrategyChannel/ network

CustomersOther IPs (e.g. TM)

Ø Organizing and Structuring criteria and indicators, mapping the asset(s)

• It should comprise the

5 different perspectives

• Need to define and select

indicators

• It should allow for correlations among

parameters

Ø Availability of Rating/ Ranking Methods

• Flexible/ Multi-criteria/ Multi-parameters

• Already known and used by Financial world, (Banks, Investors), by Marketing experts, by technical-economic valuation practitioners...

Developing the framework of analysis

Framework Components (according to Razgaitis and other authors)

I. Scoring criteria – Criteria, indicators

II. Scoring SystemIII. Scoring Scales

IV. Weighting factorsV. Decision Table – Partial and overall results; specific areas

to look at

R. Razgaitis. 2003. Valuation and Pricing of technology-based Intellectual Property. Wiley

The Model – framework of analysis

• Assigning rates / scores

• Using weights

• Taking into account correlations among modules and within modules

• Possibility of using individual, aggregated, module or overall results

• Analysis tool, in support of strategy, evaluation methods (traditional ones, too)

Results and Mapping

Primary GroupingCriteria:

• Robustness of [ ... ], Capacity

• Impact / Effect

Secondary GroupingCriteria:

• (Coefficient of) Probability of Success

• Relevance

ROBUSTNESS

IMPA

CT

SUCCESS PROBABILITY

RE

LE

VAN

CE

“Bank-oriented” secondary groupingCriteria:

• Success Probability à (Risk = 1 – Probability)

• Relevance à (~ “Profitability”)

PROBABILITY

RE

LE

VAN

CE

RISK

PRO

FITA

BIL

ITY

Scores: 1 (low), 5 (high)

13 51

3

5

risultato

1,00

3,00

5,00

1,00 3,00 5,00

Capacità

Impa

tto

risultato

Successo - Rilevanza

1,00

3,00

5,00

1,00 3,00 5,00

Probabilità di successo

rilev

anza

MODULO 1 - Aspetti propri del brevetto

Robustezza / Capacità del brevetto 4,38 84,4%Impatto / Effetto (incl. Opzioni) 3,52 63,0%

Impatto / Effetto 3,48 61,9%Opzioni 3,75 68,8%

Probabilità di Successo 3,77 69,3%Rilevanza (incl. Opzioni) 4,07 76,9%

MODULO 1 3,94 73,5%

Robustness / Capacity of patentImpact/ Effect (incl. Options)

Impact/ EffectOptions

Probability of SuccessRelevance (incl. Options)

MODULE 1

Capacity

Impa

ct Probability of Success

Rel

evan

ce

MODULE 1: Patent perspective

Module 1 - Patent

Punteggio (0) 1-5

Peso (0) 1-3

Valore (punt x peso) Note

1 Stato del brevetto: - Fase nel ciclo di vita della domanda - Fase nel ciclo di vita del brevetto

R

n We consider here in what phase of the granting process the patent or the patent application is (are)

n For a patent application it could be for example in the final examination phase, or the search report has just been released, or there is an intention to grant...

n If the patent has been granted, how many years are left for exploitation? Did the period for opposition lapsed?

Robustness/ Capacity of patent(s)

Score WeightResult

(score x weigth)

Module 1 - Patent

Punteggio (0) 1-5

Peso (0) 1-3


n It considers here the novelty aspects of a patent application: how novel can the invention be considered when confronted with the State of the Art?

n Here the reference document is the issued Search Report (X citations)

3 In che misura il brevetto sottintende ed è stato chiesto per una tecnologia superiore/ unicità dell'invenzione?

P novità


Score WeightResult

(score x weigth)

Module 1 - Patent

Punteggio (0) 1-5

Peso (0) 1-3


4 In quale misura l'invenzione è migliorativa/ superiore rispetto alle tecnologie assimilabili?

P altezza inventiva

n Is the invention in fact an improvement over similar

existing technologies/ solutions? It considers here the aspects related to the “inventive step” or “originality” of the inventive solution.

n Would a skilled person in the art be able to reach the same solution by mean of the published information or with state of the art knowledge?

n This aspect can be found in the issued Search Report, where the relevant documents with respect to the “inventive step” criteria are indicated with a “Y”.


Score WeightResult

(score x weigth)

Criteri Score Peso Val Oss al caso

Robustezza/ Capacità del brevetto

1 Stato del brevetto- Fase nel ciclo di vita della domanda- Fase nel ciclo di vita del brevetto

R 4 3 12 il documento e' alla fine della procedure per la concessione e quindi

in un momento interessante per le decisioni di tutela

2 Esame di merito: P 5 3 15

3 Il brevetto sottintende ed e' stato chiesto per una tecnologia superiore/ unicità dell'invenzione?

P 5 3 15 novita'

4 In quale misura l'invenzione e' migliorativa/ superiore rispetto alle tecnologie assimilabili?

P 5 3 15 altezza inventiva

7 Indice di Prior Art:- numerosità- Rilevanza Prior Art - Importanza Prior Art

P 4 2 8 La prior art individuata sono articoli di letteratura vicini, ma non in grado di

compromettere la solidità dell'invenzione.Si nota che il settore,

anche da un punto di vista di documentazione brevettuale è in

evoluzione e il peso di 2 è giustificato anche dal mix di presenze per i

richiedenti o player nello stato della tecnica

8 Possibilità / Probabilità di superare il rischio per il brevetto di essere reso invalido o limitato

PL 3 3 9

9 Premio di controllo: titolarità o altrimenti disponibilità del brevetto / invenzione

P 4 2 8

Robustezza/ Capacità del brevetto

39 24 105 4.38

Module 1 - Patent

MODULO 2 - Aspetti propri della tecnologia

Robustezza Concept / prototipo 4,17 79,2 %Impatto / Effetto (incl. Opzioni) 3,71 67,6 %

Impatto / Effetto 3,62 65,4 %Opzioni 4,00 75,0 %

Probabilità di Successo 3,86 71,6 %Rilevanza (incl. Opzioni) 4,11 77,6 %

MODULO 2 3,98 74,5 %


1,00

3,00

5,00

1,00 3,00 5,00


Rile

vanz

a

Capacità / Robustezza - Impatto

1,00

3,00

5,00

1,00 3,00 5,00

Robustezza

Impa

ttoRobustness / Capacity of technologyImpact/ Effect (incl. Options)

Impact/ EffectOptions

Probability of SuccessRelevance (incl. Options)

MODULE 2

MODULE 2: Technology perspective

Impa

ct

Probability of Success

Rel

evan

ce

Robustness/ Capacity

Module 2 - Technology

Punteggio (0) 1-5

Peso (0) 1-3


n It considers the importance or the contribution of the invention to the current/ actual technical and technological developments.

n It is different from indicator nr. 39 as this last one considers the future technical and technological developments: n39 takes a long term view while nr. 30 takes a short term one

n With the weight we “decide” what horizon we prefer for the investment

30 Importanza/ contributo dell’invenzione per gli sviluppi tecnici e tecnologici correnti/ attuali

R

39 Importanza dell’invenzione per gli sviluppi tecnici e tecnologici futuri

P

Robustness/ Capacity of technology

Score WeightResult

(score x weigth)


Punteggio (0) 1-5

Peso (0) 1-3


n It considers if other patented solutions, which are close to the invention, allow adequate freedom to operate (e.g. complementary technologies)

n It might be relevant in several fields, for instance in the nanotechnology sectors where patented materials and engineered materials enter the supply chain

32 Le soluzioni brevettate vicine all'invenzione consentono adeguata freedom to operate

P

Robustness/ Capacity of technology

Score WeightResult

(score x weigth)

25 L'invenzione, il concetto inventivo non è facilmente sostituibile / rimpiazzabile

P 3 2 6

26 Indice di equilibrio tra il rischio tecnico dovuto all'utilizzo di concetti nuovi e comparato con la possibilità di usare concetti più collaudati, se "vecchi"

P 4 3 12

27 Percezione positiva della tecnologia / invenzione principale utilizzata nel concept/ prototipo

R 5 2 10

- riconoscibilita' / visibilita' dell'invenzione- apprezzamento dell'invenzione/ percezione positiva o favorevole per l'invenzione

28 l'invenzione è ben vincolata al prodotto / sistema in cui è destinata

R 5 3 15

- l'invenzione è caratterizzante il prodotto / sistema

29 l'invenzione ha possibilità o leverage per applicazioni diverse su più prodotti/ sistemi

P 5 3 15

30 Importanza/ contributo dell’invenzione per gli sviluppi tecnici e tecnologici correnti/ attuali

R 5 3 15

31 Posizionamento dell'invenzione / concetto tecnologico nella roadmap

P 4 2 8

32 Le soluzioni brevettate vicine all'invenzione consentono adeguata freedom to operate

P 4 3 12

33 Stato di avanzamento/ sviluppo del prodotto/ progetto (punto di vista dell'industrializzazione)

P 1 1 1 Consideriamo che si tratta di early stage, quindi peso

basso- In quale misura l’invenzione/ idea del brevetto e’ vicina alla fase industriale?- Tempi ragionevoli / adeguati per il completamento e test del prodotto industrializzato.

Robustezza del concept/ prototipo

42 26 106 4.08


Module 3 : Internal Aspects

Main/ Primary groupingCriterion:

• Internal Capacity• All indictors fall in the category

“Capacity/ Robustness” and Probability/ Possibility of Success (P)

“Secondary” GroupingCriteria:

• Human Resources / Assets (A)

• Patent related indicators (B), i.e. related to the management of the patent(s)

The grouping of indicators is different from the preceding cases

The corresponding criteria (2nd dimensions) for Impact/ Effect and for Relevance are

provided by Module 5, External Aspects

MODULO 3 - Aspetti Interni

Capacità interna 3,97 74,2 %

Brevetto 3,90 72,5 %Team 4,00 75,0 %

1,00

3,00

5,00

1,00 3,00 5,00

Brevetto

Ass

et /

Ris

orse

MODULE 3 – Internal Aspects

Patent related capacity

HR

/ A

sset

s

Internal capacity

Patent related capacity HR / Assets

Module 3 – Internal Aspects

Punteggio (0) 1-5

Peso (0) 1-3


n It considers the competences and capacity of the team to monitor the market in order to identify counterfeiting activities/ imitated goods/ processes.

n It compares the actual company with enterprises in the same technology sector(s).

n What is the relevance within the company strategy?

Internal Capacity

44 Livello di competenza e capacità di monitorare il mercato per identificare contraffazioni/ imitazioni

A

Score WeightResult

(score x weigth)

MODULO 4 - Sbocchi di mercato

Capacità di accesso 3,56 63,9 %Impatto / Effetto 3,53 63,3 %

Probabilità di Successo 4,29 82,1 %Rilevanza 3,00 50,0 %

MODULO 4 3,55 63,6 %


1,00

3,00

5,00

1,00 3,00 5,00


Rile

vanz

a

Capacità/ Robustezza - Impatto

1,00

3,00

5,00

1,00 3,00 5,00

Robustezza

Impa

ttoCapacity of accessImpact/ Effect

Probability of SuccessRelevance

MODULE 4

MODULE 4: Access to market

Impa

ct


Rel

evan

ce

Robustness/ Capacity

Module 4 – Access to Market

Punteggio (0) 1-5

Peso (0) 1-3


n It looks at the invention/ solution: Did it consider the industrial property rights of the competitors? Are there any risks involved?

n Competitors might have some sort of patenting/ filing strategies: Have they been considered?

Capacity of access

60 L'invenzione / il prodotto tiene conto dei diritti di proprietà industriali dei concorrenti

P

Score WeightResult

(score x weigth)

Module 4 – Access to Market

Punteggio (0) 1-5

Peso (0) 1-3


n Nr. 65 looks at the capacity/ ability of the company to introduce the invention in the supply/ value chain and make it valuable

n Nr. 69 asks if there were any advantages if the supply chain would adopt the inventive solution

Capacity of access

65 Possibilità, capacità di elevare di importanza / far penetrare l'invenzione la soluzione brevettata nella filiera (vantaggio se la concorrenza adotta l'invenzione?)

R confrontare con n. 69

Impact / Effect Punteggio (0) 1-5

Peso (0) 1-3


69 Vantaggio nell'adozione della soluzione inventiva a livello di filiera?

R confrontare con n. 65

Score WeightResult

(score x weigth)

Score WeightResult

(score x weigth)

Module 5 : External Aspects

Main/ Primary groupingCriterion:

• Impact / Effect• All indictors fall in the category

“Impact/ Effect” and Relevance (R)

“Secondary” groupingCriteria:

• Strength / Fragility (F)• Controllable

• Opportunity / Enablers (E)

• Beyond control

The corresponding criteria (1st dimensions) for Capacity/

Robustness and for Probability of Success are

provided by Module 3, Internal Aspects

The grouping of indicators is different from the preceding cases

Forza - Opportunità

1,00

3,00

5,00

1,00 3,00 5,00

Forza / Fragilità

Enab

ler /

Opp

ortu

nità

MODULO 5 - Aspetti esterni

Impatto / Effetto Aspetti esterni 3,76 69,0 %

Forza / Fragilità 4,07 76,7 %Enabler / Opportunità 3,30 57,5 %

MODULE 5 – External Aspects

Strength/ Fragility

Ena

bler

s/ O

ppor

tuni

ty

Effect External Aspects

Strength/ Fragility Enablers/ Opportunity

Module 5 – External Aspects

Punteggio (0) 1-5

Peso (0) 1-3


n It asks if a market demand esists or will exist for the inventive solution, and it considers if the solution brings, in fact, something new/ useful/ needed with respect to the existing alternatives in the market.

Impact / Relevance

75 Esiste o esisterà a breve una domanda di mercato per la soluzione inventiva in quanto: - l'invenzione porta qualcosa di nuovo / utile / che in effetti manca rispetto a quanto già disponibile sul mercato?

F

Score WeightResult

(score x weigth)

1

3

5

1,00 3,00 5,00

Capacità

Impa

tto

BrevettoTecnologInt/ExtAccesso

PatentTechn.Int/ExtAccess

MODULES 1-5

Patent Techn. Int/Ext Access

Robustness 4.38 3.96 3.87 3.11

Impact / Effect 3.52 4.21 3.67 3.06

Robustness

Impa

ct


1,00

3,00

5,00

1,00 3,00 5,00

probabilità di successo

rilev

anza


PatentTechn.Int/ExtAccess

Success Probability

Rel

evan

ce

MODULES 1-5

Patent Techn. Int/Ext Access

Success Probability 3.77 3.55 3.87 3.00

Relevance 4.07 4.57 3.67 3.12

Pilot Cases

• Two pilot cases: two new young enterprises, built upon the results of university researches

– From University partner, CRUI: BioFace (Biometrics)

– From Bank partner, ABI: TTW, a special 3-tilting-wheels vehicle

• Ex-post analysis and evaluation

1

3

5

1,00 3,00 5,00

Capacità

Impa

tto


Brevetto Tecnolog Int/Ext AccessoCapacità/ Robustezza 4,38 4,15 3,97 3,11Impatto / Effetto 3,52 4,21 3,67 3,24

University Case: Modules 1 -5: Capacity / Impact dimensions

Capacity/ RobustnessImpact/ Effect

Patent Technol Int/Ext Access

Patent TechnolInt/ExtAccess

Capacity

Impa

ct


1,00

3,00

5,00

1,00 3,00 5,00


rilev

anza


Brevetto Tecnolog Int/Ext AccessoProbabilità di Successo 3,77 3,77 3,97 3,00Rilevanza 4,07 4,57 3,67 3,24

Modules 1 -5: Probability of Success / Relevance dimensions

Probability of SuccessRelevance


Patent Technol Int/Ext Access


Rel

evan

ce

1

3

5

1.00 3.00 5.00

Capacità

Impa

tto


1

3

5

1.00 3.00 5.00

Capacità

Impa

tto


1

3

5

1.00 3.00 5.00

Capacità

Impa

tto

1

3

5

1.00 3.00 5.00

Capacità

Impa

tto


1

3

5

1.00 3.00 5.00

Capacità

Impa

tto


Capacity Capacity

Capacity Capacity Capacity

Impa

ctIm

pact

Impa

ct

Impa

ct

Impa

ct



1.00

3.00

5.00

1.00 3.00 5.00


rilev

anza



1.00

3.00

5.00

1.00 3.00 5.00


rilev

anza



1.00

3.00

5.00

1.00 3.00 5.00


rilev

anza


1.00

3.00

5.00

1.00 3.00 5.00


rilev

anza



1.00

3.00

5.00

1.00 3.00 5.00


rilev

anza



Rele

vanc

eRe

leva

nce

Rele

vanc

e

Rele

vanc

e

Rele

vanc

e






PROBABILITY

REL

EVAN

CE

RISK

PRO

FITA

BIL

ITY

13 51

3

5

IP-based Project Portfolio

Modular Platform Proposal

• Organize Business Context related indicators and criteria– Business Context related criteria are usually hard-to-quantify

• Structure and simplify analysis, allowing for systematic grouping and integration of indicators/ parameters/ modules

– Indications of risk w.r.t. potential areas (like on a chart) to facilitate credit worthiness analysis

• Provide guidelines / checklists• Flexible, manageable, customizable• It could be integrated and used in support of “judgmental”

evaluation methods– E.g. for new innovative enterprises, start-ups, spin-offs

Usages and BenefitsUsages and Benefits

n Improved understanding of intrinsic value and more reliable calculation of monetary value;

n Adding more parameters for assessing risk, e.g. for financing innovative projects or opening a credit line for innovative SMEs (mitigation of business risk, better credit rating thanks to competitive advantages...)

n Devising financial instruments to facilitate access to capitals to SMEs, to new and innovative firms/ ventures

n Integrate IP related policies into programs in support of enterprises’ creation and development

IP Evaluation


IP Assets

n Guidelines for simplified evaluation, stretching between finance and strategy, in support of decision making.

n Control / check tool; Recursive check-up

Challenges

The approach should:• Balance complexity and standardization• Comply with qualitative and quantitative analysis• Measure relevance and merit• Be compatible with current evaluation practices (e.g. of

projects) in banks• Be aligned with other regulations/ definitions (e.g. IAS,

FASB, Basel II...)• Be a communication tool; comprehensible and transparent

LimitationsLimitations

n Qualitative analysis n Statistical data still missing; Experimentation ongoing (CRUI)n A decision table / read-out table still needs to be tested.n For specific fields, for instance software or biotechnology,

additional indicators or additional module(s) could be beneficial.

IP Evaluation


IP Assets

n The tool has been conceived to assist some of the stakeholders involved in the ecosystem for innovation;

n Expert reasoning still involved/ required n “Multilanguage” -> hybrid

Documents

WORLD INTELLECTUAL INTERNATIONAL … and Measuring the patents in a business context together ... cash-flow generation potential ... •Taking into account correlations among