1. Intellectual Ventures
Portfolio Analysis - Preview
Erik Oliver and Kent Richardson
March 2014
Copyright 2014 ROL Group 1

2. Notes
This is a preview of a longer analysis that ROL
Group is undertaking
The final results will appear in IAM Magazine later
in 2014
Sources (when not otherwise noted)
• IV public patent list
• Patent metadata from Thomson Innovation
Still finalizing data, please do not redistribute this
version outside the Gathering
Copyright 2014 ROL Group 2

3. Intellectual Ventures Background
Basics
• Founded 2000, total acquisitions of 70,000 IP assets
• 35,000 IP assets/year evaluated (for purchase/license)
Funds raised
• $6B as of 2014
• Form of capital commitments with a 10 year draw
Expenditures as of 2014
• $2.3B
• $730M to large companies
• $240M to mid-sizes
• $720M to startups/SMEs
• $510M to independent inventors
• $110M to universities
• Does this include: management fees, salaries (500-800 emps), portfolio/prosecution fees?
Return to investors and revenues
• Licensing revenues of $3B as of 2014
News/Context
• IIF1 vs. IIF2 investor returns?
• IIF3 Status?
• Broker community on payments?
• Recent layoffs
Copyright 2014 ROL Group 3
http://www.intellectualventures.com/about/investor-relations
2014 spend from IV Talk slides

4. IV Universe
IV Portfolio*
IV Portfolio
• ~70K
patents/apps
IV Portfolio in
monetization
• ~40K
patents/apps
Public List
• ~33K
patents/apps
US
Published/Issue
d
• ~22K
patents/apps
Business Segmentation
Invention Investment Fund 1
(IIF1)
Invention Investment Fund 2
(IIF2)
Invention Science Fund (ISF)
University/Licensing (IDF)
Copyright 2014 ROL Group 4http://patents.intven.com/finder
+ Invention Investment Fund 3 (IIF3)

5. IV Analysis Process and Focus
Copyright 2014 ROL Group 5
Fund Monetized Listed US Pat +
Pregrant Pub
Assignment
to IV id’ed
Remove
ISF
IIF 1 and 2 ✓ (32.0K) ✓ (25.8K) ✓ (18.2K) ✓ (17.4K) ✓ (17.4K)
ISF (Science) ✓(3.7K) ✓ (3.7K) ✓ (2.4K) ✓ (2.4K) ✗ (0K)
IDF (Univ.
Licensing)
✓ (~4.0K) ✓ (~3.5K) ✓ (0.7K) ✗ (0K) ✗ (0K)
Asset Count
(Approx)
40K 33K 21.3K 19.8K 17.4K
IV’s FAQ explains gap between 70K  40K: http://patents.intven.com/faq, in brief cost controls, patent sales, and expirations.
The US list has issued US patents and US patent publications only; reissues have been removed (425); applications with no publication number
have been removed (276).
IIF – We are including the Digimarc licensing agent agreement as part of IIF, approximately 700 assets.
ISF – We believe that they have listed substantially all of their ISF portfolio
IDF – We know that Asia is a focus for the program, we did not have access to the assignment records in those countries; however, we estimated
that the Asian listed IDF portfolio was 4x the size of the US listed IDF portfolio and scaled that to approximate the monetized asset count..
We primarily performed analysis of US
IIF subset and then back-estimated to
the purchased IIF patents
Reminder we have a
snapshot today... What
did the portfolio look
like 2, 3, 4 years ago?

6. When was IV Buying?
Copyright 2014 ROL Group 6
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Scaled Acquisitions by Year (Monetized IIF)
IV was buying when the market was down and continued to buy throughout the downturn
Assignment data reflects opportunistic purchases from struggling companies
Low numbers may reflect
expiration/sales of IIF1 patents or early
buying selectivity

7. Estimated Spend by IV per Year
Total Est. Spend $1.7B
Copyright 2014 ROL Group 7
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Scaled Spend per year ($M) (Monetized IIF )
Comparable acquisition
#, but paying less per
patent by 2011

8. When do the IIF portfolios expire?
Estimated Expiration Using 20 Years from Earliest Priority
Copyright 2014 ROL Group 8
<201
0
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032
Freq 2 2 0 61 679 1643 1848 2275 2181 2742 3343 4117 3523 3241 2079 1958 1741 1332 980 743 550 270 352 23
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
4500
Scaled Assets by Estimated Expiration Year (Monetized IIF)
~50% of portfolio
expired by 2021
(7 years)
~80% of portfolio
expired by 2024
(10 years)
If your company were to consider a deal with IV and the deal runs 5-7 years (2019-2021) what would a future deal
look like? Where is the distribution of patent value from IV’s perspective vs.your company’s perspective?

9. RemainingAsset Life at Time of Purchase
Calculated based on estimated expiration
Copyright 2014 ROL Group 9
Robust continuation practice
Approx 8% of portfolio today
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
Scaled Remaining Asset Life at time of IV Purchase
(Monetized IIF)
Further Prosecution
Purchased

10. Remaining Life over Time is Declining
EstimatedAverage Remaining Life OverTime
(US Pats & Pubs; Continuations Excluded)
Copyright 2014 ROL Group 10
IV seems to be buying assets closer to expiration over time!
Why? Is IV cherry picking patents with greater adoption certainty?
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014
Estimated Average Remaining Life Over Time (US Pats &
Pubs; Continuations Excluded)

11. Sellers are Diffuse
Frequency ofAssetsAssigned by Sellers
Copyright 2014 ROL Group 11
100+ 90-99 80-89 70-79 60-69 50-59 40-49 30-39 20-29 10-19 <10
Freq 22 3 2 1 8 14 16 33 57 139 1348
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
Frequency Distribution of Number of Sellers with Indicated
Quantity of Assets Assigned (US Pats and Pubs)
~100 total companies
~60% of assets
~300 total companies
~75% of assets
~1350 individuals
but only 25% of total
assets
This distribution generally foots with IV’s reported spend to IV entity size

12. Who is Selling?
Ordered by Number of Patents Sold (at least 30 sold)
Top 20 Next 20 Next 20 Next 20
Kodak Nortel Recursion Software Mosaid
Digimarc Cubic Wafer Hong Kong Technologies Lapis
NXP Genesis Microship Nippon Steal Casio
Raytheon Marconi IP Fujitsu Thales
Mangachip Delphi Chunghwa Picture Tubes Alcatel-Lucent
Telcordia Verizon Sonic Dowling Consulting
Transmeta Aplus Flash AT&T Lockheed Martin
Spyder Navigations Autocell Katrein-Werke Pulse-Link
Amex Crosstek Capital California Inst of Tech Lightspeed Logic
Polaroid Tier Logic Be Here PSS Systems
Cypress Semi Mindspeed Technologies Digital Imaging Systems DuPont
Daimler Cirrus Logic Ideaflood Lightsmyth Tech
France Telecom Kimberly-Clark UMC ST Micro
Primax Electronics Airnet Communications Microsoft Rockwell
Conexant Idelix Software Airip Cooler Master
BAE Icefyre Semi Discovision Xerox
Sanyo Mitsubishi Motorola Arraycom
Nokia Neomagic Triquint Believe
Bellsouth Oki Electric Terabeam General Dynamics
Entorian IPWireless Exclara
Copyright 2014 ROL Group 12
Many “blue-chip”/household names among sellers of patents to IV
Implications? How would something like a license on transfer impact a future aggregator?

13. Technology MarketAreas
Based on CPC code analysis
Copyright 2014 ROL Group 13
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
Relative Size of Portfolio by Market
Hardware Software Other

14. 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Relative Size of Market Category Purchases by Year
Hardware
Software
Other
Technology Market Areas over Time
Copyright 2014 ROL Group 14
Less subject matter
focus in 2010?
Pivot into hardware?
Or did hardware
patents expire/sold
sooner?

15. International Asset Distribution
Monetized IIF – Not Yet Filtered for Pub vs. Patent
Copyright 2014 ROL Group 15
IIF portfolio has limited foreign coverage ~10K assets—weak in BRIC
Issued foreign portfolio likely significantly smaller—publications were listed
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
JP WO EP AU DE CN KR CA GB AT Other TW FI FR IL ES SE BR NO MX HK DK
Estimated Foreign Asset Profile (Monetized IIF)

16. ROL GroupAutomated Ranking System
•How to decide where to spend time first in a portfolio?
Problem
•Quick and easy to calculate
•Scoring vectors make intuitive sense
•Easy to explain
Constraints
•Heuristic ranking system based on static characteristics
Solution
•# independent claims
•# forward citations adjusted for age
•Remaining patent life
•Claim 1 word length
•Means claims reduces rank
•Current age reduces rank
•Etc.
Sample Characteristics
•Used across projects for over 5 years – regularly helps us find where to focus in a portfolio
•Have benchmarked in the past versus human selection and alternative (more complex) scoring systems and
generally found similar—but not identical subsets for value—but high return for low computation
costs/explanatory simplicity
Results
Copyright 2014 ROL Group 16

17. IV Portfolio
Computer-based Ranking byAssignment Year
Copyright 2014 ROL Group 17
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
H 31 63 82 397 595 407 927 1299 1146 1631 1424 1178 851
M 18 84 96 538 976 612 1283 2103 1643 1033 1970 1412 1115
L 49 33 131 514 1156 671 1181 2273 1594 667 1976 1389 1136
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
Scaled Asset Rank by Assignment Year (Monetized IIF)
• High selectivity in purchases - Overall portfolio is relatively evenly
distributed between H/M/L, this is atypical
• Selectivity has varied over time, e.g. 2008 (bulk) vs. 2010 (quality)

18. Reissues
Demonstrates IV’s focus on patent development
Copyright 2014 ROL Group 18
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
IV Before IV
Who Reissued? (n=386)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
IV Initiated Reissues by
Filing Year (n=250)
IV focused on reissuing
patents for value and bought
reissued patents for value
The vast majority of reissues
were filed by IV in the first 24
months after purchase

19. Litigation Analysis
Coming soon
Lex Machina data under analysis:
~430 US patents where assignment was found ever been litigated
~182 litigations
To do: Figure out which litigations occurred after the IV purchase
Copyright 2014 ROL Group 19

20. Gathering Discussion Topic
What other questions could be asked?
• Tech area specific analysis, e.g. Expiration time line vs. spend
• More fine-grained analysis of IV’s purchases in “my company’s” market segments
• Assignment analysis, e.g. holding companies used and intra-IV transfers as indicators
• Analysis of sellers
• Is there overlap to companies who complain about NPEs?
• Are there common characteristics of sellers, e.g. financial distress for corporates?
• Better quantifying the amount of patent development IV performs after the purchase
• When IV purchases a patent how much of the TAM is potentially consumed by the IIF members?
• E.g., the revenue of all the corporations in that IIF fund for the area of the purchases patents
• Further follow up, publicly announced IV licensees?
• Royalty modeling, e.g. Microsoft v. Motorola (Washington; Apr 2013)
• Apply a similar analysis to IV’s portfolio, what is the proportion of total patents in the area vs.
size of IV’s portfolio
• Could be performed on a segment-by-segment basis, e.g. what % of active patents in a given
CPC class does IV own?
• Note the Washington case was a RAND case
• How would you use the information to counter an IV assertion? Prepare for IV to knock?
What would you like to know?
Copyright 2014 ROL Group 20

21. Gathering Discussion Topic
What else would you like to know?
• What would you do (differently) if IV approached
based on this data?
• What else would you like to know?
Possible future IV scenarios?
• No change: IIF3 moves forward, licensing continues
• Funds unwind/time out: What happens to portfolio?
• Legal shift: FTC action vs. NPEs, CLS/Alice Bank
@ SCOTUS reduces SW patents, other (e.g.
Licensing approach shifts to IBM/Twitter style
licenses)?
Copyright 2014 ROL Group 21

22. BACKUP
Copyright 2014 ROL Group 22

23. Technology Market Areas by Year
Copyright 2014 ROL Group 23
2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Circuitry
Semiconductors
Registers and Randomness
Material Properties
Optics
Signal Processing
Telephony/Signal Transmission
Information Storage
Data Processing
Navigation
Money Handling
Medical Devices
Climate Change

24. Technology MarketAreas
Drilldown on Telephony/Signal and Data Processing
Copyright 2014 ROL Group 24
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
Data Processing Subclasses
Relative Size
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
Telephony/Signal
Transmission Subclasses
Relative Size