• Welcome
    Sponsors
  • Director
    Members
    Advisory Board
    International Advisory Council
    Research Affiliates
    IPilogue Editors
  • IPilogue
    Events
    Publications
  • JD
    Graduate Program
    Clinical
    Prizes & Awards
  • The IPIGRAM Archive
    Events Archive
    IP in the News
    IP Poll of the Week
    IP Pick of the Week
    Gowlings IPilogue Prize
  • Legislation
    Journals
    Government
  • Contact Us
    Subscribe

Selling the crown jewels: Nortel’s patent portfolio

March 15, 2010 by Brian Chau (IPilogue Editor)

Brian Chau is a JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

As Nortel nears the end of the insolvency process, it is exploring the potential sale of its extremely valuable patent portfolio. Nortel holds 4,000 “patent families” related to the next-generation wireless technology, most notably LTE (Long Term Evolution) among others. The sale of these patents will have wide-ranging effects across the industry: Nortel’s former competitors are seeking to protect their prior purchases of Nortel’s wireless technology and obtain a competitive advantage amongst their peers.

However, the price tag is steep: JP Morgan’s Ehud Gelbum is expecting the patents to raise upwards of $2.9 B. While this sum may be disputed, there is little argument that these patent rights are highly sought after in the market. With worldwide markets racing to deploy LTE infrastructure as their next-generation wireless networks, these patents will likely generate significant royalties in the next few years (China, Germany, Japan among others). Nortel must come up with a strategy soon – the patent protection period is finite and with each passing day, the value of its portfolio decreases. Several key questions are still outstanding:

Will the Canadian government, which has stood by so far, take action if the patents are sold outside of Canada? In particular, RIM has been pushing for government action to block such a sale, on the grounds that the assets are important to the “national interest”. Given that they are among the leading Canadian bidders for the technology, they have much to gain if this strategy succeeds. The Toronto Star considers a possible analogy between these assets and the Avro Arrow.

Will Nortel emerge from bankruptcy and restructure as a LTE patent company? Some investors think so: Given that the patent portfolio was excluded from its sale to Ericsson, some investors are speculating that this is the case: Arguably, there is the basis for a smaller, profitable business that focuses on licensing the technology it developed. More from Rethink Wireless on the topic. Nortel has published its LTE patent royalty rates recently, and set them at one percent of the handset sale price.

How much are the patents really worth? In his report, Gelbum calculates the maximum value by using the 1 percent handset fee outlined by Nortel, and applying it against an expectation of 15 years patent protection lifespan at a 10% discount rate. However, he also notes that realistically they’ll capture a smaller proportion, and expects around $950M in revenue over the life of the patents.

Given the importance of these assets to the worldwide wireless industry, there are many interesting developments coming over the next few years.

Posted in Innovation, Patents

One Response to “Selling the crown jewels: Nortel’s patent portfolio”

  1. Are ICAP Ocean Tomo’s Patents “Low End”? « Gametime IP, on December 7, 2010 at 10:11 am Said:

    [...] referring to large, corporate portfolios numbering in the hundreds, or even thousands (like Novell, Nortel, and Micron) then I’d have to agree.  But that’s like saying that the French [...]

Leave a Reply

All replies and responses are moderated and will not appear on the site immediately. Please see our response policy.

« Apple v. HTC Offers Opportunity to Examine the Nature of Computer Programs | Some Consideration of Patents and Traditional Knowledge Implications: The 2009 UN Report on the Status of Indigenous Peoples »

Career Opportunities
Osgoode IP Club
Events Calendar
Writing Competitions
IP Research Guide

RSS Follow Comments via RSS
  • Mike Mitchell on Kerwhizz v. The Bounce Bunch: The Ongoing Confusion With Subconscious Copying
  • Howie Anawalt on "Don't Hide The Ball" - Best Mode in the US Patent System
  • D Vaver on "Don't Hide The Ball" - Best Mode in the US Patent System
  • Mekhala Chaubal on Patent Valuation: The Measurement ‘Gold Rush’ And The Emerging Bubble
  • Sean on "Don't Hide The Ball" - Best Mode in the US Patent System
  • Brian Chau (IPilogue Editor) on "Communication To The Public" Also Hot-Button Issue Across the Pond
  • Emir Crowne on Amazon.com Appeal Allowed By The Federal Court Of Appeal
  • Alysia Lau on Authors’ Groups File Complaint Against Google For Mass Copyright Infringement
  • Emir Crowne on Amazon.com Appeal Allowed By The Federal Court Of Appeal
  • Bart on Dramatic Expansion Of Patentability In The US: Google Acquired A Patent On Doodles
RSS Follow Posts via RSS
  • Trade Secrets, Transparency, and Temporality
  • On Suspending SOPA and Piping PIPA Down
  • Appropriation Art: Transformative or Infringing?
  • Court Decision May Be Closest Thing To BitTorrent Regulation
  • Twenga Trademark Troubles
  • Is Anyone Listening?
  • Copyright or Kopimism?
  • Kerwhizz v. The Bounce Bunch: The Ongoing Confusion With Subconscious Copying
  • “Don’t Hide The Ball” – Best Mode in the US Patent System
  • Soccer Match Schedules Must Be Creative To Be Copyrighted, Says Advocate General

IP Osgoode would like to send out its IPIGRAM at a time when most convenient for you. Please let us know your views by answering a few questions so that we can better serve you.

Click here to take poll.
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • September 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • May 2009
  • April 2009
  • March 2009
  • February 2009
  • January 2009
  • December 2008
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • August 2008
  • June 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008
  • February 2008
  • January 2008
  • November 2007
  • October 2007
  • Advisory Board (4)
  • Blogs (4)
  • Book Review (3)
  • Broadcasting Regulatory Policy (5)
  • Cloud Services (3)
  • Commercialization (77)
  • Competition (6)
  • Competition Law (7)
  • Contracts (58)
  • copyright reform (131)
  • defamation (14)
  • Design (6)
  • Development (3)
  • European Union (29)
  • events (72)
  • Fashion Industry (13)
  • Feature Post (108)
  • Freedom of Speech (15)
  • Freedom of the Press (14)
  • Gaming (6)
  • General (144)
  • Human Rights (3)
  • Image (2)
  • Innovation (137)
  • Internet (234)
  • IP (1003)
    • Copyright (504)
      • CD Levy (9)
      • Digital Downloads (63)
      • Digital Libraries (1)
      • Digital Locks (27)
      • Fair Dealing (58)
        • Parody (2)
        • Satire (1)
      • Infringement (118)
      • Internet Sharing (91)
      • Literary Works (51)
      • Moral Rights (9)
      • Movies (46)
      • Music Industry (85)
      • Originality (25)
      • Ownership (77)
        • Licensees (28)
      • Secondary (ISP) Liability (14)
      • Subsidiary Rights (5)
    • IP Reform (14)
    • Patents (320)
      • Access to Medicines (8)
      • Cross Border Issues (48)
      • Electronic Processes (18)
      • Infringement (58)
      • Patent Practice (15)
      • Patent Trolls (20)
      • Patentability (93)
      • Pharmaceutical Drugs (61)
    • Trademarks (198)
      • Domain Names (38)
      • Famous Marks (14)
      • Official Marks (10)
      • Parallel Importation (4)
      • Personality Rights (11)
  • IP Course Topic (11)
  • IP Litigation Practice (14)
  • Jurisdiction (52)
    • Canada (19)
    • Indonesia (1)
    • Japan (1)
    • UK (19)
    • US (24)
  • Law & Music Course Topic (19)
  • Links (3)
  • MediaLaws (5)
  • Music Industry (70)
  • Open-Source (16)
  • Osgoode Alumnus (10)
  • Patents Course Topic (28)
  • Privacy (164)
    • Electronic Databases (35)
    • Human Rights Issues (26)
    • Identity Theft (11)
  • Regulatory Policy (46)
  • Reputation Management (1)
  • Smartphones (9)
  • Social Justice (2)
    • United Nations Development Programme (1)
  • Social Media (23)
  • Supreme Court of Canada (17)
  • Tech Transfer (29)
  • Technology (205)
  • Telecommunications (72)
  • Trade Secrets (3)
  • UK (8)
  • Uncategorized (77)
  • US-Canada Relations (2)
  • WIPO (7)
  • Log in

Home   |   Contact Us  

© 2008 Osgoode Hall Law School York University
4700 Keele Street Toronto, Canada M3J 1P3
T:416.736.5030   F:416.736.5736