Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

BVR Business Valuation Update: Examining the Correlation Between IP and Startup Valuations


Published on

Examining the Correlation Between IP and Startup Valuations

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

BVR Business Valuation Update: Examining the Correlation Between IP and Startup Valuations

  1. 1. TIMELY NEWS, ANALYSIS, AND RESOURCES FOR DEFENSIBLE VALUATIONS Vol. 26, No. 2, February 2020 BUSINESS VALUATION UPDATE Reprinted with permissions from Business Valuation Resources, LLC By Efrat Kasznik, Foresight Valuation Group LLC (Palo Alto, Calif., USA) During a BVR webinar,1 I discussed the role that intellectual property (IP) assets play in startup valuations and the IP strategy implemented by startups that recently went public. The webinar featured a series of studies we have been con- ducting and updating since 2015, which cover unicorns (pre-exit startups with valuations ex- ceeding $1 billion) and their IP positions. Since some of the unicorns recently went public, we were able to follow them throughout their life cycle and observe what types of IP issues fre- quently emerge for startups and how are com- panies dealing with them. The questions below represent six of the most common questions that routinely come up with regard to the correlation between IP and startup valuations. I consider this article to be a compan- ion reading to the webinar, as it provides a recap of some of the key takeaways that are important for each startup (particularly in the software in- dustry) looking to manage IP as a strategic busi- ness asset. 1. Q: How can a startup develop a patent portfolio that will increase its valuation? A: There are legal aspects to a company’s patent- ing strategy, and there are business aspects to that same strategy. The legal side is best handled 1 The IP in IPO: IP Valuation Lessons From Recent Public Exits, a BVR webinar, Oct. 31, 2019; archive recording available at by lawyers, who can search and determine where patent protection should be pursued based on prior art and the patent landscape in the market. From a business/valuation perspective, a patent portfolio will have value if it is well-aligned with the assets that bring the most value to the business. In the webinar, I presented a chart (Exhibit 1) that lays out the typical intangible assets (technology, brand, and data) one finds in a software company and the types of IP rights associated with each type of asset, as represented by the lines con- necting assets to IP protection. In companies where technology is the most valuable asset (usually correlated with heavy in- vestment in R&D, such as pharma and biotech), patents can have more value compared to com- panies where the brand is the main asset (con- sumer products, as an example). Similarly, in companies where data are deemed to be the most valuable asset (as is the case in many soft- ware companies), patents may have less value as the preferred mode of protection, since patents cannot protect data. The underlying assets that bring value, such as brand or data, are often not subject to patent protection and are better pro- tected by other types of IP. 2. Q: Are patents still important to the valuation of software companies, if the main assets (software, data) are not necessarily protected by patents? A: For software companies, there is seemingly no observed correlation between having patents and having a large market share, or a high valu- ation. As seen in Exhibit 2, taken from one of the Examining the Correlation Between IP and Startup Valuations
  2. 2. 2  Business Valuation Update  February 2020 Business Valuation Resources Examining The Correlation Between Ip And Startup Valuations Business Valuation Update™ (ISSN 2472-3657, print; ISSN 2472-3665, online) is published monthly by Business Valuation Resources, LLC, 111 SW Columbia Street, Suite 750, Portland, OR 97201-5814. Periodicals Postage Paid at Portland, OR, and at additional mailing offices. Postmaster: Send address changes to Business Valuation Update (BVU), Business Valuation Resources, LLC, 111 SW Columbia Street, Suite 750, Portland, OR 97201-5814. The annual subscription price for the BVU is $459. Low-cost site licenses are available for those who wish to distribute the BVU to their colleagues at the same firm. Contact our sales department for details. Please contact us via email at, phone at 503-479-8200, fax at 503-291-7955 or visit our website at Editorial and subscription requests may be made via email, mail, fax or phone. Please note that, by submitting material to BVU, you grant permission for BVR to republish your material in this newsletter and in all media of expression now known or later developed. Although the information in this newsletter has been obtained from sources that BVR believes to be reliable, we do not guarantee its accuracy, and such information may be condensed or incomplete. This newsletter is intended for information purposes only, and it is not intended as financial, investment, legal, or consulting advice. Copyright 2020, Business Valuation Resources, LLC (BVR). All rights reserved. No part of this newsletter may be reproduced without express written consent from BVR. Please direct reprint requests to EDITORIAL ADVISORY BOARD BUSINESS VALUATION UPDATE Executive Editor: Andrew Dzamba Managing Editor: Monique Nijhout-Rowe Senior Copy Editor: David Solomon Desktop Editor: Warren Simons ExecutiveLegalEditor:SylviaGolden,Esq. Chief Revenue Officer: Lisa McInturff President: Lucretia Lyons CEO: David Foster studies covered in the webinar (Unicorn study of 2015), if we look at a group of U.S. unicorns (about 95 companies) and compare the distri- bution of patent holdings to the distribution of valuation, we can see the greatest discrepancy when it comes to the group of consumer internet companies (software companies such as Uber and Airbnb); that segment of unicorns accounts for about 40% of the valuation but holds less than 10% of the patents. However, patents increase in value in software companies as they mature and approach an exit event or enter new markets (as history has shown with companies such as Facebook, Google, and Microsoft). A startup (particularly pre-exit) is still in a building mode. There may be industries the company would like to enter in the future, where the patents could benefit them in leveraging freedom to operate with incumbents/competi- tors. Additionally, if they haven’t exited yet, a patent portfolio can be much more valuable to a potential buyer than it is to the startup holding the patents, so there is an upside to having more patents as the company is still figuring out its exit strategy. 3. Q: How can startups increase their patent port- folio and when is the right time to do that? A: There are several junctures where any company, and in particular a startup with an ab- normally high valuation, is most vulnerable when having a weak IP position: entering new markets with established incumbents and approaching an exit point such as an IPO (or M&A). Under current U.S. “first to file” patent regime, startups that show no organic patent growth may have lost the ability to patent a large portion of their core inventions due to missing key priority dates and may need to make up for it by buying patents (or companies holding patents) in response to competitive threats, spending millions of dollars in the process. A later acquisition of patents (a phenomenon often referred to as “backfilling”) takes place R. JAMES ALERDING, CPA/ABV,ASA ALERDING CONSULTING LLC INDIANAPOLIS, IN CHRISTINE BAKER, CPA/ABV/CFF ADVANCED ARCHITECTURAL PRODUCTS LLC ALLEGAN, MI NEIL J. BEATON, CPA/ABV, CFA,ASA ALVAREZ & MARSAL VALUATION SERVICES SEATTLE, WA JOHN A. BOGDANSKI, ESQ. LEWIS & CLARK LAW SCHOOL PORTLAND, OR ROD BURKERT, CPA/ABV, CVA BURKERT VALUATION ADVISORS LLC MADISON, SD DR. MICHAEL A. CRAIN, CPA/ABV, CFA, CFE FLORIDA ATLANTIC UNIVERSITY BOCA RATON, FL MARK O. DIETRICH, CPA/ABV FRAMINGHAM, MA JOHN-HENRY EVERSGERD,ASA, CFA, MBA FTI CONSULTING SYDNEY, AUSTRALIA NANCY J. FANNON,ASA, CPA, MCBA MARCUM LLP PORTLAND, ME JAY E. FISHMAN, FASA, FRICS FINANCIAL RESEARCH ASSOCIATES BALA CYNWYD, PA LANCE S. HALL,ASA STOUT RISIUS ROSS IRVINE, CA THEODORE D. ISRAEL, CPA/ABV/CFF ISRAEL FREY GROUP LLP SAN RAFAEL, CA JARED KAPLAN, ESQ. DELAWARE PLACE ADVISORY SERVICES, LLC CHICAGO, IL HAROLD G. MARTIN JR. CPA/ABV/CFF,ASA, CFE KEITER GLEN ALLEN, VA GILBERT E. MATTHEWS, CFA SUTTER SECURITIES INC. SAN FRANCISCO, CA Z. CHRISTOPHER MERCER,ASA, CFA MERCER CAPITAL MEMPHIS, TN JOHN W. PORTER, ESQ. BAKER & BOTTS HOUSTON, TX RONALD L. SEIGNEUR, MBA,ASA, CPA/ABV, CVA SEIGNEUR GUSTAFSON LAKEWOOD, CO LISA ANN SHARPE, ESQ. LASHER HOLZAPFEL SPERRY & EBBERSON SEATTLE, WA ANDREW STRICKLAND, FCA SCRUTTON BLAND UNITED KINGDOM EDWINA TAM,ASA, CBV DELOITTE HONG KONG JEFFREY S.TARBELL,ASA, CFA HOULIHAN LOKEY SAN FRANCISCO, CA GARY R.TRUGMAN, ASA, CPA/ABV, MCBA, MVS TRUGMAN VALUATION ASSOCIATES PLANTATION, FL KEVIN R.YEANOPLOS, CPA/ABV/CFF,ASA BRUEGGEMAN & JOHNSON YEANOPLOS PC TUCSON, AZ
  3. 3. February 2020  Business Valuation Update  3 Examining The Correlation Between Ip And Startup Valuations Reprinted with permissions from Business Valuation Resources, LLC Exhibit 1. Typical Intangible Assets and IP Rights for a Software Company Data Technology Brand Patents Trade Secrets Copyrights Trademarks Intellectual Property/ Intangible Assets IP Rights (Legal Protection) Foresight Valuation Group © 2019 Palo Alto, CA (650) 561-3374 Exhibit 2. U.S. Unicorns: IP Valuation Distribution by Industry Foresight Valuation Group © 2019 Palo Alto, CA (650) 561-3374 Source: Foresight Valuation Group LLC
  4. 4. 4  Business Valuation Update  February 2020 Business Valuation Resources Examining The Correlation Between Ip And Startup Valuations Reprinted with permissions from Business Valuation Resources, LLC usually as a result of a threat (or perceived threat) to the company’s freedom to operate (FTO). The kind of patents one can buy, as opposed to file organically, are those that are available in the secondary market, and those usually have value since some infringement is associated with them. The actual need for IP to support current prod- ucts is usually met by internal (organic) filing and sometimes through an acquisition of an operat- ing business (not a patent acquisition, but a busi- ness acquisition). Google and Facebook are two well-known examples of companies that had to deal with these types of situations and ended up with massive IP acquisitions: • Google’s acquisition of Motorola Mobil- ity for $12.5 billion in 2011 was primarily driven by the need to improve its IP posi- tion through a massive acquisition, in order to enter the mobile market; and • Facebook was hit by a patent lawsuit Yahoo filed a month prior to its IPO, which is a very vulnerable exit point where a lawsuit can be detrimental and potentially even derail an IPO. Since it had very few patents to fight back and countersue Yahoo, Face- book ended up paying hundreds of millions of dollars buying patents from AOL, IBM, and Microsoft in order fight the lawsuit and bolster its IP position to reduce its exposure in the future. 4. Q: Where in the financial statements of a startup can one observe the value of its IP assets? A: There is no place in the financial statements of a startup, or any company for that matter, where one can find the value of its internally gener- ated IP assets. The accounting rules in the U.S. and around the world do not generally require companies to report the value of their internally developed IP assets on the balance sheet. In that regard, there is an IP reporting gap, which is exacerbated by the fact that IP transactions are highly confidential and not generally reported at all, or at any level of detail that would allow the creation of pricing databases that could aid in the valuation of similar IP assets. Finally, even if there was full disclosure of IP transactions and pricing, the IP assets themselves are unique and it is not easy to find a direct comparable, particularly when it comes to patents. There are ways to fill in the gap, but they all involve engaging in a special valuation of the IP assets of the company. This IP valuation will not be part of any business valuation because business valuations are not targeted at valuing assets separately. In order for the IP valuation to be informative and realistic, the valuation itself needs to be preceded by a careful assessment of the assets, followed by a strategy phase, where the IP valuation firm is working with management to identify the possible monetization scenarios to be included in the valuation (more on that in the next question). 5. Q: Is there a specific patent valuation approach (market, income, cost) recommended for startups, and why? A: The valuation approach selection is second- ary in importance to the valuation context and scenario. First, there needs to be a determination of whether the startup has created enough IP to warrant a separate valuation. Something of value needs to have been created or accumulated and/or some IP protection needs to have been secured around these assets. The next question is: What is the business model of the startup, and what IP assets bring the most value in that context? Then comes the question of how the IP assets bring value to the startup, which would prescribe the valuation scenario. And only after all of that has been determined comes the ques- tion of the valuation approach and method. When it comes to the valuation of patents, as a matter of practice, I find that, in most cases in- volving startup companies, the market approach is most frequently applied. The cost approach is generally not suitable, and is very rarely used, in patent valuations. The income approach—based
  5. 5. February 2020  Business Valuation Update  5 Examining The Correlation Between Ip And Startup Valuations Reprinted with permissions from Business Valuation Resources, LLC on the out-licensing opportunities associated with the patents—depends on the likelihood of licensing and the ability to create projections of addressable markets. Given the fact that startup patents are usually young patents, they often do not have an enforcement potential (since infringe- ment usually occurs in mature markets where the patents have been out long enough to capture ex- isting products) and any licensing potential entails a technology transfer type of model, involving licensing the patent into future products that do not currently exist. This type of modeling, while feasible, ends up being too expensive for most startups, and, as a result of budget constraints, most valuations of patents in startups resort to the market approach. The market approach entails two common methodologies: relief from royalty, which is predicated on the royalty savings enjoyed by virtue of holding the patent and is based on market-observed royalties and the startup’s own product revenues. The other common methodol- ogy is based on comparable transactions, which can be gleaned through patent transactions data- bases and other public disclosures. 6. Q: Has the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Alice Corp v. CLS Bank (2014) 2 had a sig- nificant impact on software company valuations and exits? A: The Alice decision of 2014 is one example of recent Supreme Court decisions, coupled with other developments at the USPTO following the America Invents Act (patent reform) of 2011, that have generally created ambiguity and uncer- tainty with regard to subject matter eligibility and 2 Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2354 (2014). the overall validity of patents covering software inventions. In the Alice case, the Supreme Court ruled that an abstract idea does not become eli- gible for a patent simply by being implemented on a generic computer. There is strong evidence from the patent transactions market showing a devaluation of software patents and a significant slowing down in trading in these assets following the Alice decision and related developments. That being said, the correlation between these developments and software startup valuations and exits is not an easy one to draw. For once, as our research shows, many of the unicorns (75% of which are in the general software area) have managed to grow their valuations into the billions of dollars without having any material patent holdings. One might argue that the Alice decision had something to do with the lack of patents; others might argue different reasons. Since there is strong evidence that startups can grow into billions of dollars in valuation without patents, and some of them even managed to exit in a successful IPO or acquisition, I would argue that the Alice decision has little to do with soft- ware startups’ valuations and exits. Efrat Kasznik is president of Foresight Valuation Group, which is an IP valuation strategy and con- sulting firm based in Silicon Valley, Calif. She has over 20 years of experience consulting on the creation, commercialization, and valuation of in- tangible assets, including testifying as an expert in disputes involving IP and startup valuations and damages. Kasznik is a lecturer at the Stanford Graduate School of Business, and Intellectual Asset Management Magazine has recognized her as one of the top IP strategists in the world every year since 2013.