• Welcome
    Sponsors
  • Director
    Assistant Director
    Members
    Advisory Board
    International Advisory Council
    Research Affiliates
    IPilogue Editors
  • IPilogue
    Projects
    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

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
  • bob on Bill C-32: Copyright and Education in the Digital Age
  • Stuart Freen on Sizing Privacy Harm
  • Steven Bercu on First sale and digital content
  • Anonymous on Federal Court of Appeal rules that ISPs are not "broadcasters"
  • Stuart Freen on Federal Court of Appeal rules that ISPs are not "broadcasters"
  • Anonymous on Federal Court of Appeal rules that ISPs are not "broadcasters"
  • Christian Rock on ‘Operation In Our Sites’
  • Anonymous on Does Fashion Need Copyright Protection?
  • Fly Intheointment on ‘Operation In Our Sites’
  • Bart on Copyright Termination: How Authors can Reclaim their Copyrights
RSS Follow Posts via RSS
  • CRTC Seizes Internet Regulation Mantle
  • Brand Expectations in the Restroom: 4th Circuit Applies Contributory Trademark Infringement Doctrine to Post-Purchase Confusion Case
  • Yes, Patents Do Have Gender
  • Fashion IP Revisited: The Innovative Design Protection and Piracy Prevention Act
  • RIM’s Battle for Information Privacy, Market Share, and its Reputation
  • Transnational Regulation: Rough Consensus and Running Code
  • IP Osgoode: Call for Editors (2010-2011)
  • Sizing Privacy Harm
  • The Internet Age: The Culprit for a Rise in Plagiarism?
  • USPTO Issues Post-Bilski Guidelines for Patent Examiners
  • 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
  • Commercialization (46)
  • Contracts (36)
  • copyright reform (65)
  • defamation (6)
  • events (36)
  • General (120)
  • Innovation (79)
  • Internet (122)
  • IP (650)
    • Copyright (308)
      • CD Levy (6)
      • Digital Downloads (39)
      • Digital Locks (12)
      • Fair Dealing (25)
      • Infringement (60)
      • Internet Sharing (50)
      • Literary Works (24)
      • Movies (24)
      • Music Industry (42)
      • Originality (17)
      • Ownership (45)
        • Licensees (12)
      • Subsidiary Rights (4)
    • Patents (198)
      • Cross Border Issues (34)
      • Electronic Processes (7)
      • Infringement (37)
      • Patent Trolls (10)
      • Patentability (59)
      • Pharmaceutical Drugs (46)
    • Trademarks (130)
      • Domain Names (26)
      • Famous Marks (9)
      • Official Marks (8)
      • Parallel Importation (3)
      • Personality Rights (8)
  • IP Course Topic (11)
  • Links (3)
  • Music Industry (39)
  • Open-Source (14)
  • Osgoode Alumnus (3)
  • Privacy (111)
    • Electronic Databases (23)
    • Human Rights Issues (19)
    • Identity Theft (6)
  • Regulatory Policy (2)
  • Tech Transfer (12)
  • Technology (119)
  • Telecommunications (30)
  • Uncategorized (70)
  • 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