Description
The main objective of this chapter is to describe the factors that guide the determination of royalty rates for licensed intellectual property rights (IP). Key principles of IP valuation are also discussed as royalty rates and value are flip sides of the same coin; both are driven by the earnings capability of the asset.
Intellectual Property Valuation and Royalty Determination
by Tim Heberden
? 1 ?
Chapter 4 of
‘International Licensing and Technology Transfer: Practice and the Law’,
edited by Adam Liberman, Peter Chrocziel, and Russell Levine, 2011 update,
published by Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.
Contents
1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 3
2. The Economics of Intellectual Property .......................................................................... 5
3. Royalty Rate Determination ............................................................................................ 7
Income Approach to Royalty Setting ................................................................................. 9
Transactional Approach to Royalty Setting ...................................................................... 11
Return on R&D Costs ........................................................................................................ 15
Return on Market Value ................................................................................................... 15
25% Rule ........................................................................................................................... 15
Royalty Cross Checks ........................................................................................................ 16
4. Special Circumstances ................................................................................................... 17
Early Stage Technology .................................................................................................... 17
Clinical Trials ..................................................................................................................... 18
5. Valuation Approaches and Methods ............................................................................. 18
Purpose and Scope ........................................................................................................... 19
Asset Definitions ............................................................................................................... 19
Premise or Basis of Valuation ........................................................................................... 19
Valuation Approaches ...................................................................................................... 20
Income Based Valuation Methods ................................................................................... 22
Valuation Assumptions .................................................................................................... 23
Valuation Sense Checks .................................................................................................... 23
Contents of a Valuation Report ........................................................................................ 23
6. Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 24
? 2 ? © Wolters Kluwer Law & Business
About the Author
Tim Heberden is Managing Director of Brand Finance PLC in Australia. He is a non?executive
director of the Oceania Valuation Board of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, and
chaired the NSW Business Valuation Group of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in
Australia between 2007 and 2010. Tim is also a lecturer at the University of Sydney where he
developed and presents a course on Measuring Marketing Performance for the Master of
Marketing.
Tim specialises in the valuation and transfer pricing of intangible assets. He has extensive
experience of:
valuing intellectual property and other intangible assets for the purpose of financial
reporting, tax compliance, litigation and commercialisation;
advising tax authorities and multinationals on the transfer pricing of intellectual
property;
carrying out IP evaluations for M&A and private equity purposes; and
advising blue?chip companies on value?based brand strategy.
Tim is a Chartered Accountant, Chartered Marketer and holds an MBA, Bachelor of
Commerce and Bachelor of Accountancy. He is a Fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered
Surveyors, Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Marketing, and a member of LES and the
ICAA.
Tim has written for finance, risk management, intellectual property and marketing
publications, and spoken at conferences in Australia, Asia, Europe, North America and the
UK.
? 3 ? © Wolters Kluwer Law & Business
1. Introduction
The main objective of this chapter is to describe the factors that guide the determination of
royalty rates for licensed intellectual property rights (IP). Key principles of IP valuation are
also discussed as royalty rates and value are flip sides of the same coin; both are driven by
the earnings capability of the asset.
The most obvious need for a royalty rate is the negotiation of a licence; however, royalties
are required for a variety of other purposes, including:
Transfer pricing: Within multinational corporations, the use of IP by entities operating in
different tax jurisdictions results in a transfer of earnings. Tax authorities in developed
markets are paying considerable attention to ensure that arm’s length royalties are
charged. Guidance is provided in OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines and country specific
tax rulings.
Litigation: Damages claims resulting from IP infringements can be influenced by the level
of royalties that are likely to have been agreed upon by the owner of the IP and the
infringer.
1
Strategic planning: The management of IP portfolios benefits from the quantification of
the current and potential strength and earnings of each asset. Royalty potential is an
important metric in a review of an IP portfolio.
Valuation: One of the income?based methods of IP valuation is based on the notional
royalties that the property could generate.
In turn, IP valuation can be required for financial reporting, tax compliance, pre?acquisition
due diligence, and strategic asset management.
At the outset, it is helpful to compare different definitions of intangible items. Accountants
use the term ‘intangible assets’ to describe non?monetary assets without physical substance
1
The legal issues associated with the calculation of damages in an infringement suit are beyond the
scope of this Chapter, particularly since such issues often are dependent upon the law in the
jurisdiction where suit was brought and thus, the jurisdiction calculating damages. For example, in the
U.S., a reasonable royalty for purposes of a damages calculation often is determined in a
“hypothetical” negotiation that evaluates various so-called Georgia-Pacific factors. See Georgia-
Pacific Corp. v. United States Plywood Corp., 318 F. Supp. 1116 (S.D. N.Y. 1970). Moreover, in the
U.S., damages in an infringement suit could include the patentee’s lost profits and the U.S. Courts
apply a four-factor test for determining the propriety of lost profits damages, including (1) demand for
the patented product, (2) absence of acceptable non-infringing substitutes, (3) manufacturing and
marketing capability to exploit the demand, and (4) the amount of profit the patentee would have
made. See Ericsson, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 352 F.3d 1369, 1377-79 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Micro Chem., Inc.
v. Lextron, Inc., 318 F.3d 1119, 1123 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also Panduit Corp. v. Stahlin Bros. Fibre
Works,, Inc., 575 F.2d 1152 (6th Cir. 1978).
? 4 ? © Wolters Kluwer Law & Business
that are identifiable, controlled by the owner, and expected to generate economic benefits.
Intellectual property rights are a subset of intangible assets. The term ‘intellectual capital’ is
generally used in a broader context, referring to all non?monetary and non?physical
resources that contribute to value creation. This will include items such as human capital
which does not meet the accounting definition of an intangibles asset.
Diagram
2. The
Techno
generat
expecte
blocks o
Knowle
betwee
Compet
reconfig
current
The eco
IP is
The
The
the
The
IP is
com
tran
Mos
of th
1: Terms Used
e Econom
logy, trade
te cash flow
ed to genera
of enterpris
dge of the
n them, is
titive adva
guration of
and potent
onomic char
s not diminis
re is seldom
risk of was
property IP
value of IP
s commonly
mbination. M
nsactions ca
st companie
heir IP.
d to Define th
ics of Inte
marks and
ws. The valu
ate and the
e value.
e value con
s essential
antage is
intangible
tial value co
racteristics
shed by use
m a not a lin
sted investm
P is successf
often resul
y licensed
Market bas
annot alway
es have inad
? 5
e Resources w
ellectual P
other IP ar
ue of an en
e associated
ntribution o
for corpo
increasing
resources.
ontribution
of IP are sig
e, and can g
near relatio
ment is high
fully comme
lts from link
on a stand
sed royalty
ys be identif
dequate me
5 ?
within an Ente
Property
re typically
terprise is
d risk. The r
of each of
rate strate
gly due to
Yet few co
of their IP a
gnificantly d
generally be
onship betw
h, but this i
ercialized.
kages with o
dalone basis
y rates are
fied.
etrics regard
erprise
combined
a function
resources of
these build
egy, IP ma
o the dev
mpanies ha
and other in
different to
e used simu
ween the co
is countere
other assets
s, but usua
often ava
ding the str
The d
prope
intang
subse
base.
© Wolters K
with other
of the free
f the busine
ding blocks
nagement,
velopment,
ave a clear a
ntangible as
tangible ass
ltaneously
ost of creati
d by a high
s.
ally sold as
ailable, but
rength, perf
diagram sho
erty rights
gible assets
et of an ent
Kluwer Law &
r assets in o
cash flow t
ess are the
s, and the
and IP va
, integrati
appreciatio
ssets.
sets:
by many pa
ing IP and it
h upside pot
part of a
t comparab
formance a
ows that in
are a s
s, which in t
terprise’s t
& Business
order to
that it is
building
linkages
aluation.
on and
on of the
arties.
ts value.
tential if
business
ble sales
nd value
ntellectual
subset of
turn are a
otal asset
Value c
and the
organisa
flows. T
drivers,
historic
Diagram
present
strategy
demand
and ulti
stages i
Diagram
The dia
each re
compet
linear; l
shows t
importa
reation ma
e linkages
ation are d
The directio
can be est
data, and D
m 2 is best r
t value of f
y should b
d and effici
imately to
n the value
2: Value Map
gram is gen
esource wil
tencies and
linkages be
that groupin
ance and lin
ps can be u
with other
deployed to
on and exte
timated thr
Delphi techn
read from r
future cash
e directly
ency driver
investment
chain.
p ? Identifying
neric and h
l differ acc
its means
tween reso
ng the orga
nkages.
? 6
used to iden
r resources
o create a
ent of the r
rough a com
niques.
right to left
flows is n
linked to d
rs back to t
t decisions.
IP and Other
as been sim
cording to
of differen
ources can
anisation’s r
6 ?
ntify the re
s. These m
differentia
resource in
mbination o
. The conce
not content
driving futu
the contrib
This is bes
Resources
mplified into
the sector
ntiation. In
be crucial t
resources b
lative impo
aps illustra
ted market
ter?relation
of market r
ept that the
tious. Nor i
ure cash flo
uting resou
st achieved
o a linear f
in which a
the real w
to value cre
by function
© Wolters K
rtance of IP
ate how th
t position a
nships, and
research, st
e value of a
s the prem
ows. The c
urces, tangi
by identify
So
ramework.
a company
world busine
eation. The
can help ide
Kluwer Law &
P within a b
he resource
and genera
their role
tatistical an
business is
mise that co
challenge is
ible and int
ying the se
ource: Brand F
The impor
operates,
ess models
e following
entify their
& Business
business,
es of an
ate cash
as value
alysis of
s the net
orporate
s to link
tangible,
quential
Finance plc
tance of
its core
are not
diagram
r relative
Diagram
When
disaggre
the IP t
propert
3. Roy
Royalty
whateve
commo
include:
A sin
A pr
A ch
For
3: Value Map
evaluating
egate the e
to another
ty will gener
yalty Rate
payments
er basis of
n method i
:
ngle up?fron
re?determin
harge based
early stage
p ? Grouping IP
the earnin
earnings of t
r owner, it
rate.
e Determi
are a prof
royalty cal
s the expre
nt payment
ned amount
d on units of
technology
? 7
P by Function
ngs genera
the enterpr
is necessa
nation
fit sharing
culation tha
ssion of the
t.
t that is paid
f manufactu
y, royalties c
7 ?
and Gauging
ated by IP
rise. For the
ary to estim
mechanism
at meets th
e royalty as
d periodica
ure or sales
can be base
Importance
in its cur
e purpose o
mate the in
m. Parties to
heir comme
a percenta
lly, similar t
s.
ed on devel
© Wolters K
So
rrent use,
of determin
ncremental
o a license
ercial requi
age of reven
to a propert
opment cos
Kluwer Law &
ource: Brand F
it is neces
ning the ear
earnings t
e are free t
rements. T
nue, other m
ty rental.
sts.
& Business
Finance plc
ssary to
rnings of
that the
to select
he most
methods
? 8 ? © Wolters Kluwer Law & Business
Whatever basis is used, consideration should be given to the detail. For instance, a royalty
based on sales revenue can be calculated on either retail or wholesale revenue, and can be
calculated pre or post returns and discounts.
2
When considering alternative royalty bases and rates, it is recommended that the expected
cash flows are modelled over the duration of the license for a number of potential scenarios.
For instance, a large up?front payment accompanied by a low revenue?based royalty might
appear attractive to the licensor in the short term, but prove to be sub optimal over the
duration of the license. For instance, a multinational company licensed the trade marks for a
key brand in a major market for a sub?optimal royalty and upfront ‘sweetener’. Surprisingly,
the license was in perpetuity. Although the upfront payment benefited short term cash flow,
it was dwarfed by the diminished ongoing royalty. As there was no escape from the license,
the trademarks were ultimately sold to the licensee.
There are two fundamental factors that influence a royalty rate. The first is the earnings
generated by the intellectual property, and the second is how this is shared between the
owner and the licensee. Royalty determination is often complicated by uncertainty regarding
the extent of the economic contribution of the IP. This is accentuated by the fact that IP is
typically bundled with complimentary assets in order to generate earnings. Dissecting the
earnings of a business between the contributing assets is a complicated and often imprecise
task.
An alternative approach is to base the royalty on rates achieved in arm’s length licenses of
similar IP. At a superficial level, this transactional approach seems simple, providing that
information from comparable agreements is available. However, the distinctive
characteristics of intellectual property rights and the nuances of license agreements can
complicate matters.
The income and transactional approaches to royalty determination are discussed in more
detail in the following section.
2
As previously stated, legal issues associated with the calculations of damages for infringement are
beyond the scope of the Chapter. However, it should be noted that in the U.S., recent decisions from
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit have addressed issues pertaining to the use of the
“entire market value” when calculating damages. See Lucent v. Gateway, 580 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir.
2009). Moreover, before an expert can present the entire market value theory to a jury, the expert
must a demonstrate “that the patented invention was the basis for demand of those products.” Cornell
Univ. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., No. 01-CV-1974, 2008 WL 2222189, *2 (N.D.N.Y. May 27, 2008)
(internal citations omitted)).
? 9 ? © Wolters Kluwer Law & Business
When IP is licensed between unrelated parties the royalty is the subject of negotiations;
however, for litigation and transfer pricing the royalty is purely based on analysis. Licensing
practitioners might feel that economic analysis is superfluous as royalty rates are dependent
upon their negotiating ability and the intrinsic strength of the IP. However, negotiation is
clearly assisted by having a robust analytical basis to support a position.
Income Approach to Royalty Setting
It is straightforward to identify the earnings of an existing asset that is used on a standalone
basis, so all that is required to determine a royalty is a basis for splitting the earnings
between the owner and licensee. Payment of all of the earnings as a royalty would negate
the purpose of the license for the licensee (unless there are synergistic benefits). At the
other extreme, allowing the licensee to retain all of the earnings is unlikely to appeal to the
owner. The appropriate point within the earnings spectrum is a function of market forces
that include:
The uniqueness of the IP;
The number of suitable licensees;
The risks born by the two parties and their respective levels of investment;
Each party’s rights and responsibilities in terms of the license.
Most IP has to be integrated with other assets in order to generate income. This makes it
more difficult to identify the earnings that it generates. Unravelling the earnings of the
subject IP from other assets can be achieved by applying the Profit Split or Residual Profit
methods.
Both of these methods analyse the profit margin of the business in which the IP is used, in
order to apportion it to the underlying assets. The starting point of the analysis can be
earnings before interest and tax (EBIT), or EBITDA which also excludes depreciation and
amortisation. The nature of the industry and availability of data will influence the selection
of the profit level indicator.
Diagram 4 illustrates that the next step is to make a charge for tangible assets and routine
intangibles in order to determine the ‘excess earnings’ or margin attributable to the unique
intangibles within the business. The routine margin earned in the subject industry can be
determined by an analysis of the profitability of comparable companies which do not own
valuable IP.
Diagram
In the il
and the
exercise
unit als
to split
for the
residua
If the t
betwee
contribu
firm’s p
efficien
A profit
value d
answer.
excess m
margin
attribut
The rea
for com
4: Example of
llustrated e
e routine m
e is to deter
o benefits f
the excess
trademark
l basis. In th
trademark
n the paten
ution. This
product fro
cies.
t split analy
drivers. The
. In the exam
margin wou
is expresse
ted to the p
asonablenes
mparable IP i
f Profit Split A
example, th
margin has
rmine a roy
from a wel
earnings of
is known,
he illustratio
royalty is n
nt and the t
requires an
om its com
ysis can be
e latter ap
mple, the fi
uld infer a ro
ed as a perc
atent.)
ss of the fin
in the indus
? 10
Analysis
e EBIT mar
been estim
yalty rate fo
l?establishe
f 7% betwe
then the m
on, the resid
not known,
trademark a
n analysis o
mpetitors,
e based on
proach pro
nding that t
oyalty of be
centage of
ndings shou
stry.
0 ?
gin of the b
mated as 8%
or a patent,
ed tradema
een these tw
margin attrib
dual margin
, it is nece
according to
of the exten
or the ext
quantitativ
ovides dire
the patent
etween 3.5%
revenue, so
uld be cros
business th
%. Let’s ass
and that th
rk. Further
wo assets. I
butable to t
n attributed
essary to sp
o an evalua
nt to which
tent to wh
ve research
ctional gui
contributes
% and 4.2%
o too is the
s checked a
© Wolters K
at owns the
sume that t
he profitabi
analysis is
f the arm’s
the patent
d to the pate
plit the exc
tion of thei
h each asset
hich it gen
h or qualita
dance rath
s between 5
of revenue
e portion of
against exp
Kluwer Law &
e subject IP
the purpos
ility of the
therefore r
length roy
is establish
ent is 4%.
cess margi
r relative ec
t differenti
nerates pro
ative weigh
her than a
50% and 60
e. (As the o
f the margi
pected roya
& Business
P is 15%,
e of the
business
required
alty rate
hed on a
n of 7%
conomic
ates the
oduction
htings of
specific
% of the
perating
n that is
lty rates
? 11 ? © Wolters Kluwer Law & Business
Transactional Approach to Royalty Setting
The transactional approach determines royalties with reference to licenses for comparable
IP in comparable markets and circumstances. This approach is widely used for transfer
pricing where it is referred to as the Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method (CUP).
The best comparable royalties are from arm’s length licenses for the same IP in the same, or
similar, markets.
3
If this is not possible, analysis of specific licenses for comparable IP, or
industry norms, can provide guidance.
4
When analysing arm’s length royalty rates for comparable IP, it is necessary to take account
of the following factors.
The similarities and differences between the subject IP and the benchmarked
transactions. This covers the nature and application of the IP; its phase of development
and commercial success; its strength relative to alternative property, and its expected
useful economic life.
The range of markets covered by the license.
The comparability of the markets in which the IP was licensed. The earnings potential of
a similar asset can vary significantly between jurisdictions due to different economic
circumstances and competitive forces.
The method of calculating the royalty.
5
A headline royalty in a benchmark study might
conceal adjustments to the royalty base that differ to the licence of the subject IP.
The impact of the terms and conditions of the comparable licenses. For instance, an
exclusive license will typically have a higher royalty than a non?exclusive one, the
duration of the license can influence the royalty as can other terms of the agreement
which influence the rights and responsibilities of the licensee.
3
See Rude v. Wescott, 180 U.S. 152 (1889) (referring to an established royalty rate based on the
prior licensor practices). See also Tektronix, Inc. v. United States, 552 F.2d 343 (Ct. Cl. 1977)
(preferring an established royalty rate when a pattern of prior licensing practices is evident.); and
T.J. Smith & Nephew Ltd. V. Parke, Davis & Co., 9 F.3d 979 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (stating that
evidence of an established royalty for a patent in suit is one of the strongest measures of a
reasonable royalty); Trell v. Marlee Elecs. Corp.,912 F.2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(discussing the
standards for determining when an established royalty exists).
4
In the U.S., the Courts have recently emphasized and reiterated that the IP in other license
agreements must be “comparable” in order to rely on such agreements in a damages analysis. See
ResQnet.com v. Lansa, 594 F.3d 860 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
5
U.S. Courts recently have criticized analyses that are “little more than a recitation of royalty numbers”
requiring instead evidence as to how lump sum payments in other, comparable license agreements for
example, were calculated. See WordTech v. Integrated Network, 609 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
? 12 ? © Wolters Kluwer Law & Business
Special circumstances that may have influenced the benchmarked royalties. For instance,
if sales of the product incorporating the IP increase sales of other products, the licensee
might agree to a low royalty.
The extent of publicly available royalty rates varies by industry and category of IP, depending
on the prevalence of licensing and need for disclosure. In situations where there are a large
number of licensing agreements, an analysis can be made of the range of royalties within the
industry. The following paragraphs explore the extent to which reliance can be placed on
industry norms.
A study of 2,279 licenses in fifteen industries
6
suggests that the median royalty in most
industries is close to 5%.
6
Carried out by Analysis Group, using data from RoyaltySource
®
, as quoted by Russell Parr, ‘Royalty
Rates for Licensing IP’
Diagram
The gro
not very
they can
A 2008
reviewe
disperse
meanin
Diagram
It is alw
strength
7
Porter,
Nouvelle
5: Median Te
Sourc
ouping arou
y informati
n mask wid
8 study by
ed, royalty r
ed. Within
gful conclus
6: Royalty Ra
ways necess
h of the su
M; Mills, R;
es, March 20
chnology Roy
ce: Analysis Gr
nd 5% of av
ve. Median
e ranges wi
Porter, M
rates are co
these indu
sions regard
ate Ranges in T
ary to cons
ubject IP co
Weinstein, R
008.
? 13
yalty Rates
roup, as quote
verage roya
n and avera
ithin an ind
Mills and W
oncentrated
ustries, the
ding the ave
Three Industri
ider the co
ould result
R, ‘Industry N
3 ?
ed by Parr, R.
alties in a w
age royalty
ustry.
Weinstein
7
c
d around a
e range of
erage.
ies
nfidence le
in it devia
Norms and R
in ‘Royalty Ra
wide range o
rates have
concluded
certain roy
royalty ra
evel of the r
ating signific
Reasonable R
© Wolters K
ates for Licens
of industrie
to be treat
that in th
yalty range
tes is suffi
Source: les N
royalty rang
cantly from
Royalty Rate
Kluwer Law &
sing IP’
es is interest
ted with ca
he three in
and are no
iciently nar
Nouvelles, Ma
ge and whe
m the avera
e Determinati
& Business
ting, but
ution as
ndustries
ot widely
rrow for
arch 2008.
ether the
age. The
on’, les
followin
ranges c
Diagram
Maxim
Upper
Averag
Media
Lower
Minim
Sample
The inte
the exis
would d
simple
renewa
appropr
subject
develop
Diagram
ng example
can lead the
7: Royalty Ra
mum:
Quartile:
ge:
n:
Quartile:
um:
e Size:
er?quartile r
stence of ro
do well to e
analysis of
ble energy
riate point
IP has high
pment. This
8: Using an IP
e, in a diffe
e analyst as
ange for a Sam
1
range of 2%
oyalties up t
evaluate the
f four facto
patent is
within the
commercia
results in a
P Evaluation t
? 14
erent indus
stray.
mple of Renew
19.5%
5.0%
4.0%
3.0%
2.0%
1.0%
35
Source
% to 5% sug
to 19.5%. A
e strength o
ors that in
illustrates
e sector ran
al potential,
a royalty rat
o Determine a
4 ?
stry, illustra
wable Energy P
e: Brand Finan
ggests a fair
A would?be
of the IP pri
fluence the
below. The
nge for the
, but is dow
te close to t
an Appropriat
ates how b
Patents
nce PLC
rly narrow r
licensor of
or to accep
e economic
e findings c
e subject IP
wngraded be
the sector m
te Point in the
© Wolters K
blinkered u
oyalty band
renewable
ting a medi
c potential
can be used
P. In the ill
ecause it is
median.
Industry Roya
Sou
Kluwer Law &
use of inter
d, but this d
energy tec
ian royalty
of a hypo
d to deter
lustrated c
at an early
alty Range
urce: Brand Fi
& Business
rquartile
disguises
chnology
of 3%. A
othetical
mine an
ase, the
stage of
nance PLC
? 15 ? © Wolters Kluwer Law & Business
Return on R&D Costs
There is often a non?linear relationship between the cost of creating intangible assets and
their market value; the gap between cost and value is particularly pronounced for unique IP.
As a result, R&D costs cannot be relied upon as a reliable basis for royalty determination.
However, there are circumstances where R&D costs provide a relevant reference point for
royalty determination.
In the case of replicable technology, R&D costs are relevant because potential licensees
can choose between developing an asset of similar utility or licensing existing
technology.
When the income potential for early stage technology is difficult to gauge, R&D costs can
be used to provide a gauge to royalty potential. The royalty should also account for the
novelty of the technology and the strength of legal protection.
Return on Market Value
Where the market value of IP has been determined, this provides a relevant basis for
calculating an appropriate return earned through a royalty. Market value accounts for
factors such as the unique characteristics of the asset, ease of replication, and income
potential. The return earned by the owner through a royalty will therefore be largely
influenced by the useful economic life of the asset, any unique contribution made by the
licensee, and the terms of the license agreement.
25% Rule
According to this rule of thumb a licensee should pay a royalty rate equivalent to about 25
per cent of the expected profits for the product that incorporates the subject IP. The rule has
been widely used as a starting point in royalty rate determination for several decades,
despite, or because of, its simplicity and the intuitive logic that royalties are aligned with
profitability. Criticism of the rule focuses on the lack of clarity regarding the appropriate
profit level indicator, the contribution of other IP within the operating business, and disputes
regarding the empirical evidence.
8
8
In the U.S., the Courts recently rejected the use of the 25% rule in calculating a royalty for damages
purposes calling the 25% Rule “fundamentally flawed.” Uniloc v. Microsoft, 632 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir.
2011).
? 16 ? © Wolters Kluwer Law & Business
Goldshneider, et al. (2002) conclude that the “the Rule is a valuable tool (rough as it is),
particularly when more complete data on incremental IP benefits are unavailable. The Rule
continues to have a fair degree of both ‘positive’ and ‘normative’ strength”.
A more recent study conducted by Kemmere and Lu
9
found that average royalty rates
“rendered indirect support to the 25% rule. However, such a conclusion should be taken
with caution, because no linear relationship was found between the reported royalty rates
and operating margins.”
A more important finding of this study is that statistical analysis shows a linear relationship
between reported royalty rates and profitability measures, and that this suggests that the
licensing market is efficient and that “cost structure and profitability across industries have
been factored into royalty rate negotiations”.
A detailed review of the 25% Rule is beyond the scope of this chapter; the most pertinent
point is that it should not be relied upon in isolation, although it can provide a starting point
for an analysis where there is a scarcity of supporting information.
Royalty Cross Checks
Whatever the primary method of valuation, it is strongly recommended that the output is
sense checked by other methods. A process of triangulation can provide strong support for a
royalty range in situations where no single method is compelling.
In the illustrated example four methods have been applied to support a royalty range.
Diagram 9: Use of Multiple Methods to Determine a Royalty Range
9
Kemmerer, J .E and Lu, J , ‘Profitability and Royalty Rates Across Industries: Some Preliminary
Evidence’, J ournal of Academy of Business and Economics, volume 8, number 3, 2008.
i) Comparable royalties between unrelated parties:
- upper quartile 8.0%
- median 5.5%
- lower quartile 2.0%
ii) Excess earnings analysis 5.0%
iii) 25% rule of thumb 4.5%
Recommended royalty range
(considering IP evaluation)
5.0% - 5.5%
iv) Implied royalty cover 4.5
In some
strong s
4. Spe
Early St
For tech
great un
technol
and at
generat
In these
probabi
technol
hurdle s
Diagram
Even if
impract
cost bas
e instances,
signal to rev
ecial Circu
tage Techno
hnology tha
ncertainty r
ogy will ha
an early st
ting unit.
e situation
ility tree in
ogy genera
supresses th
10: Probabilit
the estim
tical, a prob
sed royalty
, different
view the sup
umstances
ology
at is in its in
regarding th
ave to be in
tage it is d
s a probab
dicates tha
ates earning
he current v
ty Tree Identif
ation of p
bability tre
calculation
? 17
methods w
pporting ev
s
fancy and w
he extent a
ntegrated w
difficult to
bility weigh
at there are
gs. The cum
value of this
fying the Hurd
Source
robabilities
e helps ma
.
7 ?
will suggest
vidence and
will not be c
and timing o
with other r
evaluate it
hted valuat
e a number
mulative eff
s technolog
dles and Risks
e: Brand Finan
and futur
ake approp
significantl
d assumptio
commercia
of future ea
resources i
s relative i
tion can be
r of hurdles
fect of the
gy.
Prior to Comm
nce PLC
re earnings
riate assum
© Wolters K
y different
ns.
lised for sev
arnings. In s
n order to
mportance
e appropria
s to be neg
probability
mercialisation
make the
mptions for
Kluwer Law &
royalties. T
veral years,
some insta
generate e
e within an
ate. The ill
gotiated be
y of failure
n
e income a
r a transact
& Business
This is a
, there is
nces the
earnings,
income
ustrated
fore the
at each
pproach
tional or
Clinical
A simila
pharma
charged
preclinic
Diagram
The diag
preclinic
maximu
The aut
increase
deals w
licensor
5. Val
An IP va
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
10
Source
Trials
ar relation
aceutical se
d in 155 bio
cal, pre POC
1: Average Fix
gram illustr
cal group sh
um royalty f
thors of this
ed, and con
where there
r and license
luation Ap
aluation sho
Confirmat
Definition
Identificat
Selection
e: Les Nouve
ship betwe
ector. A 20
opharmaceu
C (proof of
ixed Royalty b
rates averag
howed a gr
found for la
s study not
nclude that
e is greater
ee.”
pproaches
ould consist
tion of the p
of the subj
tion of the p
of the appr
elles: Review
? 18
een stage
09 study b
utical licens
concept), a
y Stage of De
ge royalties
eater differ
unched IP w
e a clear tr
“this finding
r potential
s and Met
t of the follo
purpose and
ject asset.
premise, or
opriate valu
w of LES Bio
8 ?
of develop
by Renwick
es, and spli
nd launche
velopment
s. In compa
rence with t
was 27.5%.
rend to the
g supports t
for dispar
thods
owing steps
d scope of t
basis, of va
uation appr
oPharma Roy
pment and
and McCa
t these by s
d.
rison, the m
the pre?POC
use of tiere
the use of t
ity betwee
s:
the valuatio
alue.
roach.
yalty Rate an
© Wolters K
royalty ra
arthy
10
ana
stage of dev
median roya
C group’s m
ed royalties
tiered royalt
n the sales
on.
nd Deal Term
Kluwer Law &
ates occurs
lysed the r
velopment,
alty of 3.5%
median of 5.
s as predict
ties for larg
s predicted
ms Survey
& Business
s in the
royalties
, namely
% for the
.0%. The
ted sales
ger value
d by the
? 19 ? © Wolters Kluwer Law & Business
(v) Selection of the method of valuation.
(vi) Determination of the valuation assumptions.
(vii) Cross checks of the findings.
Purpose and Scope
The level of detail and rigour required in a valuation ranges between an indicative valuation
and a formal valuation opinion. It is important to match deliverables with the purpose of the
valuation. It is inappropriate to commission an indicative valuation for the purpose of
litigation, financial reporting or transfer pricing, but in other instances management only
needs to know the order of magnitude of an asset’s value in order to make a commercial
decision.
Valuation reports must always indicate whether there is a limitation of scope.
Asset Definitions
A clear definition of the subject asset is especially important for intangible assets as terms
such as ‘technology’ and ‘brand’ are subject to different interpretations. It is necessary to
identify the specific rights that are bundled into a generic heading. The extent of rights
within the package can have a significant impact on its earnings potential and value.
The term ‘technology’ can include patents, patent applications, design rights, trade secrets,
software and documented know?how. Similarly, there is no generally accepted definition of
the term ‘brand’. This is sometimes used in reference to trademarks and associated
goodwill, while on other occasions it includes recipes, formulae, design rights and copyright.
It extreme cases the term is used to describe a branded business unit, consisting of both
tangible and intangible assets.
When interactions between intellectual property rights are intense, they are treated as
complimentary assets – both for transactional and valuation purposes.
Premise or Basis of Valuation
Value is in the eye of the beholder, so it is essential to determine whether an asset is to be
valued from the perspective of the current owner (value in use), a typical purchaser (market
value), a specific purchaser (investment value), or an unwilling seller (liquidation value).
The purpose of the valuation will usually determine the appropriate premise of value. In
most commercial situations, market value is the appropriate premise. International
Valuation Standards define market value as:
? 20 ? © Wolters Kluwer Law & Business
“The estimated amount which a property should exchange on the date of valuation between
a willing buyer and a willing seller in an arm’s?length transaction after proper marketing
wherein the parties had each acted knowledgeably, prudently, and without compulsion.”
11
Valuation Approaches
There are three valuation approaches, namely the cost approach, sales comparison (or
market) approach, and the income approach.
Cost approach ? This approach values the IP on the basis of its historic cost of creation, or
the estimated cost to create a replacement asset with similar commercial utility.
Consideration is given to all costs (expressed in current values) associated with replacing or
replicating the IP, less an allowance for any forms of obsolescence that has occurred.
The cost approach is only appropriate for valuing easily replicable assets. The non?linear
relationship between the development cost of certain IP and its value must be born in mind.
This is reflected in a situation where millions of dollars in R&D are incurred on unsuccessful
technology that has negligible value.
Sales comparison approach ? This approach establishes value by comparison to recent sales
of comparable assets. Information regarding the standalone sales of patents and trademarks
are sometimes available; however, IP is more frequently sold as part of a business
combination. The unique nature of IP means that even if sales prices for comparable IP are
available, adjustments are required for differences in the utility of the asset and for factors
such as the relative market conditions at the time of the sale and the remaining economic
life.
Income Approach ? Finance theory holds that the amount that a rational investor will pay for
a business or asset is the cash flow that it is expected to generate, discounted by the cost of
capital (which takes account of the asset’s risk profile).
The income approach is generally the most appropriate approach for valuing patents and
trademarks. As illustrated in Diagram 12, it involves:
Identifying the current income generated by the IP. For property that is integrated into a
business unit, this will involve determining the portion of the earnings that are attributed
to the IP. (The next section describes some of the available methods.)
Deducting associated costs.
11
International Valuation Standards, Seventh Edition, 5.2 page 27.
Dete
dura
diffe
the
sign
Fore
econ
fact
Calc
each
on
mar
Disc
Diagram
Earning
discoun
be discr
ermining th
ation of a p
ers by indu
other hand
s of impairm
ecasting th
nomic con
ors.
culating a d
h dollar ear
governmen
rket), and sp
counting the
12: Illustratio
s multiples
nted cash flo
retely analy
he useful e
patent. The
stry and ta
d, brands ar
ment.
he rate of
ditions, ind
iscount rat
rned in futu
nt bonds),
pecific risks
e forecast IP
on of a Discoun
s can be u
ow method
ysed.
? 21
economic l
useful eco
akes accoun
re generally
earnings g
dustry tren
e. The disco
re years. It
the marke
attached to
P earnings b
nted Cash Flo
sed as a p
d is theoreti
1 ?
ife of the
onomic life
nt of the lik
y assumed t
growth. Gr
nds, compe
ount rate is
is a functio
et risk prem
o the comp
back to a pr
w Valuation
proxy for fu
ically more
IP. This co
of technolo
kelihood of
to have an
rowth rate
etitive perf
s used to d
n of three f
mium (extr
any and IP.
resent value
uture cash
robust as i
© Wolters K
oncept diffe
ogy will be
technology
indefinite li
s take acc
formance,
etermine th
factors: the
a risk app
e.
So
flow and
t requires k
Kluwer Law &
ers from t
a finite per
y obsolesce
ife unless t
count of e
and asset
he current
risk free ra
lying to th
ource: Brand F
risk, howe
key value d
& Business
he legal
riod that
ence. On
here are
expected
specific
value of
ate (yield
he share
Finance plc
ver, the
rivers to
? 22 ? © Wolters Kluwer Law & Business
The income approach is reliant on the ability to make reasonable estimates of future
earnings; this can complicate its use for the valuation of early stage technology which will
not be commercialised for some years. This is discussed later in the chapter.
There are a number of income based valuation methods.
Income Based Valuation Methods
The income based valuation methods are closely linked to the methods of royalty
determination, which have already been discussed.
Relief from Royalty: This is a commercially orientated method that is based on the
assumption that if the subject IP was not owned, it would have to be licensed from a third
party, and a royalty paid. The value of the IP is represented by the present value of the
notional royalty stream that ownership relieves the business from paying. The capital value
of the asset is calculated using either a discounted cash flow or multiple to arrive at the
current value of the forecast notional royalty stream. Determination of the notional royalty
rate will use one of the methods discussed in section 3 of this chapter.
Profit Split: This is similar to the profit split method of royalty determination. Rather than
expressing the subject IP’s profit contribution as a percentage of sales, the dollar amount is
forecast into the future and discounted back to a present value. The profit contribution of
the subject IP can be determined through quantitative research or qualitative weightings of
value drivers.
Residual Earnings: This method values the IP as the present value of the future residual cash
flow after deducting returns for all other assets required to operate the business. The first
step is to make a charge to operating profit for net tangible assets and routine intangibles.
Thereafter, charges are made for identifiable intangible assets that have already been
valued. As long as it has been established that the subject IP is the only remaining asset, the
residual earnings are attributed to it. The rate used to calculate the charge made for each
asset category takes account of the company’s cost of capital and the asset’s risk profile.
Incremental cash flow method: The incremental cash flow method identifies the cash flow
generated by the subject IP through comparison with a business that is comparable in all
other respects, but does not have similar IP. The evaluation of incremental cash flows
considers increased revenues and reduced costs. Although conceptually sound, this method
is difficult to apply in practice.
? 23 ? © Wolters Kluwer Law & Business
Valuation Assumptions
The rigour of an IP valuation is heavily dependent on the quality of the assumptions. A
formal valuation report will include a significant amount of analysis to support each
assumption, and clearly state all data sources. Less rigour is required for an indicative
valuation.
As illustrated in Diagram 12, the key assumptions of a discounted cash flow valuation are the
current earnings of the subject IP, forecast growth, discount rate, and the useful economic
life of the asset.
When the sales comparison approach is used, it is necessary to evaluate the extent of the
similarities and differences of the comparable transactions as compared to the subject IP.
The reasons for any adjustments should be articulated and the supporting analysis disclosed
together with the data sources.
Key assumptions in cost based valuations include any decisions as to whether components of
historic R&D are relevant to the replacement of the asset, inflationary adjustments, and
obsolescence provisions.
Valuation Sense Checks
As with royalty determination, IP valuations benefit from the use of more than one method
and from commercial sense checks. For instance, if the income approach has been used, the
implied earnings multiple should be considered for reasonableness. The cost of replicating
the IP, or producing an asset of similar utility, should always be considered as it represents
the ceiling to the valuation.
It is advisable to carry out sensitivity analysis to determine the value impact of changes in
key valuation assumptions, and to disclose the impact of these in the report.
Contents of a Valuation Report
A formal valuation report should contain the following information:
The scope of the valuation and any limitations or restrictions to its scope.
The purpose for which the valuation report has been prepared.
A clear description of the asset being valued.
The date at which the value has been determined, and the date on which the report has
been issued.
? 24 ? © Wolters Kluwer Law & Business
The basis, approach and method of valuation.
A conclusion of value.
Sufficient details of the valuation and underlying assumptions to allow a reader to
understand how the conclusion was reached.
The name, qualifications and experience of the valuer.
6. Conclusion
Decisions regarding the value of IP, and associated royalty rates, have far reaching
commercial consequences. This justifies thorough analysis of potential IP earnings prior to a
transaction, and careful consideration of the value impact of the terms of the agreement.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
doc_843863730.pdf
The main objective of this chapter is to describe the factors that guide the determination of royalty rates for licensed intellectual property rights (IP). Key principles of IP valuation are also discussed as royalty rates and value are flip sides of the same coin; both are driven by the earnings capability of the asset.
Intellectual Property Valuation and Royalty Determination
by Tim Heberden
? 1 ?
Chapter 4 of
‘International Licensing and Technology Transfer: Practice and the Law’,
edited by Adam Liberman, Peter Chrocziel, and Russell Levine, 2011 update,
published by Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.
Contents
1. Introduction ..................................................................................................................... 3
2. The Economics of Intellectual Property .......................................................................... 5
3. Royalty Rate Determination ............................................................................................ 7
Income Approach to Royalty Setting ................................................................................. 9
Transactional Approach to Royalty Setting ...................................................................... 11
Return on R&D Costs ........................................................................................................ 15
Return on Market Value ................................................................................................... 15
25% Rule ........................................................................................................................... 15
Royalty Cross Checks ........................................................................................................ 16
4. Special Circumstances ................................................................................................... 17
Early Stage Technology .................................................................................................... 17
Clinical Trials ..................................................................................................................... 18
5. Valuation Approaches and Methods ............................................................................. 18
Purpose and Scope ........................................................................................................... 19
Asset Definitions ............................................................................................................... 19
Premise or Basis of Valuation ........................................................................................... 19
Valuation Approaches ...................................................................................................... 20
Income Based Valuation Methods ................................................................................... 22
Valuation Assumptions .................................................................................................... 23
Valuation Sense Checks .................................................................................................... 23
Contents of a Valuation Report ........................................................................................ 23
6. Conclusion ..................................................................................................................... 24
? 2 ? © Wolters Kluwer Law & Business
About the Author
Tim Heberden is Managing Director of Brand Finance PLC in Australia. He is a non?executive
director of the Oceania Valuation Board of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, and
chaired the NSW Business Valuation Group of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in
Australia between 2007 and 2010. Tim is also a lecturer at the University of Sydney where he
developed and presents a course on Measuring Marketing Performance for the Master of
Marketing.
Tim specialises in the valuation and transfer pricing of intangible assets. He has extensive
experience of:
valuing intellectual property and other intangible assets for the purpose of financial
reporting, tax compliance, litigation and commercialisation;
advising tax authorities and multinationals on the transfer pricing of intellectual
property;
carrying out IP evaluations for M&A and private equity purposes; and
advising blue?chip companies on value?based brand strategy.
Tim is a Chartered Accountant, Chartered Marketer and holds an MBA, Bachelor of
Commerce and Bachelor of Accountancy. He is a Fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered
Surveyors, Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Marketing, and a member of LES and the
ICAA.
Tim has written for finance, risk management, intellectual property and marketing
publications, and spoken at conferences in Australia, Asia, Europe, North America and the
UK.
? 3 ? © Wolters Kluwer Law & Business
1. Introduction
The main objective of this chapter is to describe the factors that guide the determination of
royalty rates for licensed intellectual property rights (IP). Key principles of IP valuation are
also discussed as royalty rates and value are flip sides of the same coin; both are driven by
the earnings capability of the asset.
The most obvious need for a royalty rate is the negotiation of a licence; however, royalties
are required for a variety of other purposes, including:
Transfer pricing: Within multinational corporations, the use of IP by entities operating in
different tax jurisdictions results in a transfer of earnings. Tax authorities in developed
markets are paying considerable attention to ensure that arm’s length royalties are
charged. Guidance is provided in OECD Transfer Pricing Guidelines and country specific
tax rulings.
Litigation: Damages claims resulting from IP infringements can be influenced by the level
of royalties that are likely to have been agreed upon by the owner of the IP and the
infringer.
1
Strategic planning: The management of IP portfolios benefits from the quantification of
the current and potential strength and earnings of each asset. Royalty potential is an
important metric in a review of an IP portfolio.
Valuation: One of the income?based methods of IP valuation is based on the notional
royalties that the property could generate.
In turn, IP valuation can be required for financial reporting, tax compliance, pre?acquisition
due diligence, and strategic asset management.
At the outset, it is helpful to compare different definitions of intangible items. Accountants
use the term ‘intangible assets’ to describe non?monetary assets without physical substance
1
The legal issues associated with the calculation of damages in an infringement suit are beyond the
scope of this Chapter, particularly since such issues often are dependent upon the law in the
jurisdiction where suit was brought and thus, the jurisdiction calculating damages. For example, in the
U.S., a reasonable royalty for purposes of a damages calculation often is determined in a
“hypothetical” negotiation that evaluates various so-called Georgia-Pacific factors. See Georgia-
Pacific Corp. v. United States Plywood Corp., 318 F. Supp. 1116 (S.D. N.Y. 1970). Moreover, in the
U.S., damages in an infringement suit could include the patentee’s lost profits and the U.S. Courts
apply a four-factor test for determining the propriety of lost profits damages, including (1) demand for
the patented product, (2) absence of acceptable non-infringing substitutes, (3) manufacturing and
marketing capability to exploit the demand, and (4) the amount of profit the patentee would have
made. See Ericsson, Inc. v. Harris Corp., 352 F.3d 1369, 1377-79 (Fed. Cir. 2003); Micro Chem., Inc.
v. Lextron, Inc., 318 F.3d 1119, 1123 (Fed. Cir. 2003). See also Panduit Corp. v. Stahlin Bros. Fibre
Works,, Inc., 575 F.2d 1152 (6th Cir. 1978).
? 4 ? © Wolters Kluwer Law & Business
that are identifiable, controlled by the owner, and expected to generate economic benefits.
Intellectual property rights are a subset of intangible assets. The term ‘intellectual capital’ is
generally used in a broader context, referring to all non?monetary and non?physical
resources that contribute to value creation. This will include items such as human capital
which does not meet the accounting definition of an intangibles asset.
Diagram
2. The
Techno
generat
expecte
blocks o
Knowle
betwee
Compet
reconfig
current
The eco
IP is
The
The
the
The
IP is
com
tran
Mos
of th
1: Terms Used
e Econom
logy, trade
te cash flow
ed to genera
of enterpris
dge of the
n them, is
titive adva
guration of
and potent
onomic char
s not diminis
re is seldom
risk of was
property IP
value of IP
s commonly
mbination. M
nsactions ca
st companie
heir IP.
d to Define th
ics of Inte
marks and
ws. The valu
ate and the
e value.
e value con
s essential
antage is
intangible
tial value co
racteristics
shed by use
m a not a lin
sted investm
P is successf
often resul
y licensed
Market bas
annot alway
es have inad
? 5
e Resources w
ellectual P
other IP ar
ue of an en
e associated
ntribution o
for corpo
increasing
resources.
ontribution
of IP are sig
e, and can g
near relatio
ment is high
fully comme
lts from link
on a stand
sed royalty
ys be identif
dequate me
5 ?
within an Ente
Property
re typically
terprise is
d risk. The r
of each of
rate strate
gly due to
Yet few co
of their IP a
gnificantly d
generally be
onship betw
h, but this i
ercialized.
kages with o
dalone basis
y rates are
fied.
etrics regard
erprise
combined
a function
resources of
these build
egy, IP ma
o the dev
mpanies ha
and other in
different to
e used simu
ween the co
is countere
other assets
s, but usua
often ava
ding the str
The d
prope
intang
subse
base.
© Wolters K
with other
of the free
f the busine
ding blocks
nagement,
velopment,
ave a clear a
ntangible as
tangible ass
ltaneously
ost of creati
d by a high
s.
ally sold as
ailable, but
rength, perf
diagram sho
erty rights
gible assets
et of an ent
Kluwer Law &
r assets in o
cash flow t
ess are the
s, and the
and IP va
, integrati
appreciatio
ssets.
sets:
by many pa
ing IP and it
h upside pot
part of a
t comparab
formance a
ows that in
are a s
s, which in t
terprise’s t
& Business
order to
that it is
building
linkages
aluation.
on and
on of the
arties.
ts value.
tential if
business
ble sales
nd value
ntellectual
subset of
turn are a
otal asset
Value c
and the
organisa
flows. T
drivers,
historic
Diagram
present
strategy
demand
and ulti
stages i
Diagram
The dia
each re
compet
linear; l
shows t
importa
reation ma
e linkages
ation are d
The directio
can be est
data, and D
m 2 is best r
t value of f
y should b
d and effici
imately to
n the value
2: Value Map
gram is gen
esource wil
tencies and
linkages be
that groupin
ance and lin
ps can be u
with other
deployed to
on and exte
timated thr
Delphi techn
read from r
future cash
e directly
ency driver
investment
chain.
p ? Identifying
neric and h
l differ acc
its means
tween reso
ng the orga
nkages.
? 6
used to iden
r resources
o create a
ent of the r
rough a com
niques.
right to left
flows is n
linked to d
rs back to t
t decisions.
IP and Other
as been sim
cording to
of differen
ources can
anisation’s r
6 ?
ntify the re
s. These m
differentia
resource in
mbination o
. The conce
not content
driving futu
the contrib
This is bes
Resources
mplified into
the sector
ntiation. In
be crucial t
resources b
lative impo
aps illustra
ted market
ter?relation
of market r
ept that the
tious. Nor i
ure cash flo
uting resou
st achieved
o a linear f
in which a
the real w
to value cre
by function
© Wolters K
rtance of IP
ate how th
t position a
nships, and
research, st
e value of a
s the prem
ows. The c
urces, tangi
by identify
So
ramework.
a company
world busine
eation. The
can help ide
Kluwer Law &
P within a b
he resource
and genera
their role
tatistical an
business is
mise that co
challenge is
ible and int
ying the se
ource: Brand F
The impor
operates,
ess models
e following
entify their
& Business
business,
es of an
ate cash
as value
alysis of
s the net
orporate
s to link
tangible,
quential
Finance plc
tance of
its core
are not
diagram
r relative
Diagram
When
disaggre
the IP t
propert
3. Roy
Royalty
whateve
commo
include:
A sin
A pr
A ch
For
3: Value Map
evaluating
egate the e
to another
ty will gener
yalty Rate
payments
er basis of
n method i
:
ngle up?fron
re?determin
harge based
early stage
p ? Grouping IP
the earnin
earnings of t
r owner, it
rate.
e Determi
are a prof
royalty cal
s the expre
nt payment
ned amount
d on units of
technology
? 7
P by Function
ngs genera
the enterpr
is necessa
nation
fit sharing
culation tha
ssion of the
t.
t that is paid
f manufactu
y, royalties c
7 ?
and Gauging
ated by IP
rise. For the
ary to estim
mechanism
at meets th
e royalty as
d periodica
ure or sales
can be base
Importance
in its cur
e purpose o
mate the in
m. Parties to
heir comme
a percenta
lly, similar t
s.
ed on devel
© Wolters K
So
rrent use,
of determin
ncremental
o a license
ercial requi
age of reven
to a propert
opment cos
Kluwer Law &
ource: Brand F
it is neces
ning the ear
earnings t
e are free t
rements. T
nue, other m
ty rental.
sts.
& Business
Finance plc
ssary to
rnings of
that the
to select
he most
methods
? 8 ? © Wolters Kluwer Law & Business
Whatever basis is used, consideration should be given to the detail. For instance, a royalty
based on sales revenue can be calculated on either retail or wholesale revenue, and can be
calculated pre or post returns and discounts.
2
When considering alternative royalty bases and rates, it is recommended that the expected
cash flows are modelled over the duration of the license for a number of potential scenarios.
For instance, a large up?front payment accompanied by a low revenue?based royalty might
appear attractive to the licensor in the short term, but prove to be sub optimal over the
duration of the license. For instance, a multinational company licensed the trade marks for a
key brand in a major market for a sub?optimal royalty and upfront ‘sweetener’. Surprisingly,
the license was in perpetuity. Although the upfront payment benefited short term cash flow,
it was dwarfed by the diminished ongoing royalty. As there was no escape from the license,
the trademarks were ultimately sold to the licensee.
There are two fundamental factors that influence a royalty rate. The first is the earnings
generated by the intellectual property, and the second is how this is shared between the
owner and the licensee. Royalty determination is often complicated by uncertainty regarding
the extent of the economic contribution of the IP. This is accentuated by the fact that IP is
typically bundled with complimentary assets in order to generate earnings. Dissecting the
earnings of a business between the contributing assets is a complicated and often imprecise
task.
An alternative approach is to base the royalty on rates achieved in arm’s length licenses of
similar IP. At a superficial level, this transactional approach seems simple, providing that
information from comparable agreements is available. However, the distinctive
characteristics of intellectual property rights and the nuances of license agreements can
complicate matters.
The income and transactional approaches to royalty determination are discussed in more
detail in the following section.
2
As previously stated, legal issues associated with the calculations of damages for infringement are
beyond the scope of the Chapter. However, it should be noted that in the U.S., recent decisions from
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit have addressed issues pertaining to the use of the
“entire market value” when calculating damages. See Lucent v. Gateway, 580 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir.
2009). Moreover, before an expert can present the entire market value theory to a jury, the expert
must a demonstrate “that the patented invention was the basis for demand of those products.” Cornell
Univ. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., No. 01-CV-1974, 2008 WL 2222189, *2 (N.D.N.Y. May 27, 2008)
(internal citations omitted)).
? 9 ? © Wolters Kluwer Law & Business
When IP is licensed between unrelated parties the royalty is the subject of negotiations;
however, for litigation and transfer pricing the royalty is purely based on analysis. Licensing
practitioners might feel that economic analysis is superfluous as royalty rates are dependent
upon their negotiating ability and the intrinsic strength of the IP. However, negotiation is
clearly assisted by having a robust analytical basis to support a position.
Income Approach to Royalty Setting
It is straightforward to identify the earnings of an existing asset that is used on a standalone
basis, so all that is required to determine a royalty is a basis for splitting the earnings
between the owner and licensee. Payment of all of the earnings as a royalty would negate
the purpose of the license for the licensee (unless there are synergistic benefits). At the
other extreme, allowing the licensee to retain all of the earnings is unlikely to appeal to the
owner. The appropriate point within the earnings spectrum is a function of market forces
that include:
The uniqueness of the IP;
The number of suitable licensees;
The risks born by the two parties and their respective levels of investment;
Each party’s rights and responsibilities in terms of the license.
Most IP has to be integrated with other assets in order to generate income. This makes it
more difficult to identify the earnings that it generates. Unravelling the earnings of the
subject IP from other assets can be achieved by applying the Profit Split or Residual Profit
methods.
Both of these methods analyse the profit margin of the business in which the IP is used, in
order to apportion it to the underlying assets. The starting point of the analysis can be
earnings before interest and tax (EBIT), or EBITDA which also excludes depreciation and
amortisation. The nature of the industry and availability of data will influence the selection
of the profit level indicator.
Diagram 4 illustrates that the next step is to make a charge for tangible assets and routine
intangibles in order to determine the ‘excess earnings’ or margin attributable to the unique
intangibles within the business. The routine margin earned in the subject industry can be
determined by an analysis of the profitability of comparable companies which do not own
valuable IP.
Diagram
In the il
and the
exercise
unit als
to split
for the
residua
If the t
betwee
contribu
firm’s p
efficien
A profit
value d
answer.
excess m
margin
attribut
The rea
for com
4: Example of
llustrated e
e routine m
e is to deter
o benefits f
the excess
trademark
l basis. In th
trademark
n the paten
ution. This
product fro
cies.
t split analy
drivers. The
. In the exam
margin wou
is expresse
ted to the p
asonablenes
mparable IP i
f Profit Split A
example, th
margin has
rmine a roy
from a wel
earnings of
is known,
he illustratio
royalty is n
nt and the t
requires an
om its com
ysis can be
e latter ap
mple, the fi
uld infer a ro
ed as a perc
atent.)
ss of the fin
in the indus
? 10
Analysis
e EBIT mar
been estim
yalty rate fo
l?establishe
f 7% betwe
then the m
on, the resid
not known,
trademark a
n analysis o
mpetitors,
e based on
proach pro
nding that t
oyalty of be
centage of
ndings shou
stry.
0 ?
gin of the b
mated as 8%
or a patent,
ed tradema
een these tw
margin attrib
dual margin
, it is nece
according to
of the exten
or the ext
quantitativ
ovides dire
the patent
etween 3.5%
revenue, so
uld be cros
business th
%. Let’s ass
and that th
rk. Further
wo assets. I
butable to t
n attributed
essary to sp
o an evalua
nt to which
tent to wh
ve research
ctional gui
contributes
% and 4.2%
o too is the
s checked a
© Wolters K
at owns the
sume that t
he profitabi
analysis is
f the arm’s
the patent
d to the pate
plit the exc
tion of thei
h each asset
hich it gen
h or qualita
dance rath
s between 5
of revenue
e portion of
against exp
Kluwer Law &
e subject IP
the purpos
ility of the
therefore r
length roy
is establish
ent is 4%.
cess margi
r relative ec
t differenti
nerates pro
ative weigh
her than a
50% and 60
e. (As the o
f the margi
pected roya
& Business
P is 15%,
e of the
business
required
alty rate
hed on a
n of 7%
conomic
ates the
oduction
htings of
specific
% of the
perating
n that is
lty rates
? 11 ? © Wolters Kluwer Law & Business
Transactional Approach to Royalty Setting
The transactional approach determines royalties with reference to licenses for comparable
IP in comparable markets and circumstances. This approach is widely used for transfer
pricing where it is referred to as the Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method (CUP).
The best comparable royalties are from arm’s length licenses for the same IP in the same, or
similar, markets.
3
If this is not possible, analysis of specific licenses for comparable IP, or
industry norms, can provide guidance.
4
When analysing arm’s length royalty rates for comparable IP, it is necessary to take account
of the following factors.
The similarities and differences between the subject IP and the benchmarked
transactions. This covers the nature and application of the IP; its phase of development
and commercial success; its strength relative to alternative property, and its expected
useful economic life.
The range of markets covered by the license.
The comparability of the markets in which the IP was licensed. The earnings potential of
a similar asset can vary significantly between jurisdictions due to different economic
circumstances and competitive forces.
The method of calculating the royalty.
5
A headline royalty in a benchmark study might
conceal adjustments to the royalty base that differ to the licence of the subject IP.
The impact of the terms and conditions of the comparable licenses. For instance, an
exclusive license will typically have a higher royalty than a non?exclusive one, the
duration of the license can influence the royalty as can other terms of the agreement
which influence the rights and responsibilities of the licensee.
3
See Rude v. Wescott, 180 U.S. 152 (1889) (referring to an established royalty rate based on the
prior licensor practices). See also Tektronix, Inc. v. United States, 552 F.2d 343 (Ct. Cl. 1977)
(preferring an established royalty rate when a pattern of prior licensing practices is evident.); and
T.J. Smith & Nephew Ltd. V. Parke, Davis & Co., 9 F.3d 979 (Fed. Cir. 1993) (stating that
evidence of an established royalty for a patent in suit is one of the strongest measures of a
reasonable royalty); Trell v. Marlee Elecs. Corp.,912 F.2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1990)(discussing the
standards for determining when an established royalty exists).
4
In the U.S., the Courts have recently emphasized and reiterated that the IP in other license
agreements must be “comparable” in order to rely on such agreements in a damages analysis. See
ResQnet.com v. Lansa, 594 F.3d 860 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
5
U.S. Courts recently have criticized analyses that are “little more than a recitation of royalty numbers”
requiring instead evidence as to how lump sum payments in other, comparable license agreements for
example, were calculated. See WordTech v. Integrated Network, 609 F.3d 1308 (Fed. Cir. 2010).
? 12 ? © Wolters Kluwer Law & Business
Special circumstances that may have influenced the benchmarked royalties. For instance,
if sales of the product incorporating the IP increase sales of other products, the licensee
might agree to a low royalty.
The extent of publicly available royalty rates varies by industry and category of IP, depending
on the prevalence of licensing and need for disclosure. In situations where there are a large
number of licensing agreements, an analysis can be made of the range of royalties within the
industry. The following paragraphs explore the extent to which reliance can be placed on
industry norms.
A study of 2,279 licenses in fifteen industries
6
suggests that the median royalty in most
industries is close to 5%.
6
Carried out by Analysis Group, using data from RoyaltySource
®
, as quoted by Russell Parr, ‘Royalty
Rates for Licensing IP’
Diagram
The gro
not very
they can
A 2008
reviewe
disperse
meanin
Diagram
It is alw
strength
7
Porter,
Nouvelle
5: Median Te
Sourc
ouping arou
y informati
n mask wid
8 study by
ed, royalty r
ed. Within
gful conclus
6: Royalty Ra
ways necess
h of the su
M; Mills, R;
es, March 20
chnology Roy
ce: Analysis Gr
nd 5% of av
ve. Median
e ranges wi
Porter, M
rates are co
these indu
sions regard
ate Ranges in T
ary to cons
ubject IP co
Weinstein, R
008.
? 13
yalty Rates
roup, as quote
verage roya
n and avera
ithin an ind
Mills and W
oncentrated
ustries, the
ding the ave
Three Industri
ider the co
ould result
R, ‘Industry N
3 ?
ed by Parr, R.
alties in a w
age royalty
ustry.
Weinstein
7
c
d around a
e range of
erage.
ies
nfidence le
in it devia
Norms and R
in ‘Royalty Ra
wide range o
rates have
concluded
certain roy
royalty ra
evel of the r
ating signific
Reasonable R
© Wolters K
ates for Licens
of industrie
to be treat
that in th
yalty range
tes is suffi
Source: les N
royalty rang
cantly from
Royalty Rate
Kluwer Law &
sing IP’
es is interest
ted with ca
he three in
and are no
iciently nar
Nouvelles, Ma
ge and whe
m the avera
e Determinati
& Business
ting, but
ution as
ndustries
ot widely
rrow for
arch 2008.
ether the
age. The
on’, les
followin
ranges c
Diagram
Maxim
Upper
Averag
Media
Lower
Minim
Sample
The inte
the exis
would d
simple
renewa
appropr
subject
develop
Diagram
ng example
can lead the
7: Royalty Ra
mum:
Quartile:
ge:
n:
Quartile:
um:
e Size:
er?quartile r
stence of ro
do well to e
analysis of
ble energy
riate point
IP has high
pment. This
8: Using an IP
e, in a diffe
e analyst as
ange for a Sam
1
range of 2%
oyalties up t
evaluate the
f four facto
patent is
within the
commercia
results in a
P Evaluation t
? 14
erent indus
stray.
mple of Renew
19.5%
5.0%
4.0%
3.0%
2.0%
1.0%
35
Source
% to 5% sug
to 19.5%. A
e strength o
ors that in
illustrates
e sector ran
al potential,
a royalty rat
o Determine a
4 ?
stry, illustra
wable Energy P
e: Brand Finan
ggests a fair
A would?be
of the IP pri
fluence the
below. The
nge for the
, but is dow
te close to t
an Appropriat
ates how b
Patents
nce PLC
rly narrow r
licensor of
or to accep
e economic
e findings c
e subject IP
wngraded be
the sector m
te Point in the
© Wolters K
blinkered u
oyalty band
renewable
ting a medi
c potential
can be used
P. In the ill
ecause it is
median.
Industry Roya
Sou
Kluwer Law &
use of inter
d, but this d
energy tec
ian royalty
of a hypo
d to deter
lustrated c
at an early
alty Range
urce: Brand Fi
& Business
rquartile
disguises
chnology
of 3%. A
othetical
mine an
ase, the
stage of
nance PLC
? 15 ? © Wolters Kluwer Law & Business
Return on R&D Costs
There is often a non?linear relationship between the cost of creating intangible assets and
their market value; the gap between cost and value is particularly pronounced for unique IP.
As a result, R&D costs cannot be relied upon as a reliable basis for royalty determination.
However, there are circumstances where R&D costs provide a relevant reference point for
royalty determination.
In the case of replicable technology, R&D costs are relevant because potential licensees
can choose between developing an asset of similar utility or licensing existing
technology.
When the income potential for early stage technology is difficult to gauge, R&D costs can
be used to provide a gauge to royalty potential. The royalty should also account for the
novelty of the technology and the strength of legal protection.
Return on Market Value
Where the market value of IP has been determined, this provides a relevant basis for
calculating an appropriate return earned through a royalty. Market value accounts for
factors such as the unique characteristics of the asset, ease of replication, and income
potential. The return earned by the owner through a royalty will therefore be largely
influenced by the useful economic life of the asset, any unique contribution made by the
licensee, and the terms of the license agreement.
25% Rule
According to this rule of thumb a licensee should pay a royalty rate equivalent to about 25
per cent of the expected profits for the product that incorporates the subject IP. The rule has
been widely used as a starting point in royalty rate determination for several decades,
despite, or because of, its simplicity and the intuitive logic that royalties are aligned with
profitability. Criticism of the rule focuses on the lack of clarity regarding the appropriate
profit level indicator, the contribution of other IP within the operating business, and disputes
regarding the empirical evidence.
8
8
In the U.S., the Courts recently rejected the use of the 25% rule in calculating a royalty for damages
purposes calling the 25% Rule “fundamentally flawed.” Uniloc v. Microsoft, 632 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir.
2011).
? 16 ? © Wolters Kluwer Law & Business
Goldshneider, et al. (2002) conclude that the “the Rule is a valuable tool (rough as it is),
particularly when more complete data on incremental IP benefits are unavailable. The Rule
continues to have a fair degree of both ‘positive’ and ‘normative’ strength”.
A more recent study conducted by Kemmere and Lu
9
found that average royalty rates
“rendered indirect support to the 25% rule. However, such a conclusion should be taken
with caution, because no linear relationship was found between the reported royalty rates
and operating margins.”
A more important finding of this study is that statistical analysis shows a linear relationship
between reported royalty rates and profitability measures, and that this suggests that the
licensing market is efficient and that “cost structure and profitability across industries have
been factored into royalty rate negotiations”.
A detailed review of the 25% Rule is beyond the scope of this chapter; the most pertinent
point is that it should not be relied upon in isolation, although it can provide a starting point
for an analysis where there is a scarcity of supporting information.
Royalty Cross Checks
Whatever the primary method of valuation, it is strongly recommended that the output is
sense checked by other methods. A process of triangulation can provide strong support for a
royalty range in situations where no single method is compelling.
In the illustrated example four methods have been applied to support a royalty range.
Diagram 9: Use of Multiple Methods to Determine a Royalty Range
9
Kemmerer, J .E and Lu, J , ‘Profitability and Royalty Rates Across Industries: Some Preliminary
Evidence’, J ournal of Academy of Business and Economics, volume 8, number 3, 2008.
i) Comparable royalties between unrelated parties:
- upper quartile 8.0%
- median 5.5%
- lower quartile 2.0%
ii) Excess earnings analysis 5.0%
iii) 25% rule of thumb 4.5%
Recommended royalty range
(considering IP evaluation)
5.0% - 5.5%
iv) Implied royalty cover 4.5
In some
strong s
4. Spe
Early St
For tech
great un
technol
and at
generat
In these
probabi
technol
hurdle s
Diagram
Even if
impract
cost bas
e instances,
signal to rev
ecial Circu
tage Techno
hnology tha
ncertainty r
ogy will ha
an early st
ting unit.
e situation
ility tree in
ogy genera
supresses th
10: Probabilit
the estim
tical, a prob
sed royalty
, different
view the sup
umstances
ology
at is in its in
regarding th
ave to be in
tage it is d
s a probab
dicates tha
ates earning
he current v
ty Tree Identif
ation of p
bability tre
calculation
? 17
methods w
pporting ev
s
fancy and w
he extent a
ntegrated w
difficult to
bility weigh
at there are
gs. The cum
value of this
fying the Hurd
Source
robabilities
e helps ma
.
7 ?
will suggest
vidence and
will not be c
and timing o
with other r
evaluate it
hted valuat
e a number
mulative eff
s technolog
dles and Risks
e: Brand Finan
and futur
ake approp
significantl
d assumptio
commercia
of future ea
resources i
s relative i
tion can be
r of hurdles
fect of the
gy.
Prior to Comm
nce PLC
re earnings
riate assum
© Wolters K
y different
ns.
lised for sev
arnings. In s
n order to
mportance
e appropria
s to be neg
probability
mercialisation
make the
mptions for
Kluwer Law &
royalties. T
veral years,
some insta
generate e
e within an
ate. The ill
gotiated be
y of failure
n
e income a
r a transact
& Business
This is a
, there is
nces the
earnings,
income
ustrated
fore the
at each
pproach
tional or
Clinical
A simila
pharma
charged
preclinic
Diagram
The diag
preclinic
maximu
The aut
increase
deals w
licensor
5. Val
An IP va
(i)
(ii)
(iii)
(iv)
10
Source
Trials
ar relation
aceutical se
d in 155 bio
cal, pre POC
1: Average Fix
gram illustr
cal group sh
um royalty f
thors of this
ed, and con
where there
r and license
luation Ap
aluation sho
Confirmat
Definition
Identificat
Selection
e: Les Nouve
ship betwe
ector. A 20
opharmaceu
C (proof of
ixed Royalty b
rates averag
howed a gr
found for la
s study not
nclude that
e is greater
ee.”
pproaches
ould consist
tion of the p
of the subj
tion of the p
of the appr
elles: Review
? 18
een stage
09 study b
utical licens
concept), a
y Stage of De
ge royalties
eater differ
unched IP w
e a clear tr
“this finding
r potential
s and Met
t of the follo
purpose and
ject asset.
premise, or
opriate valu
w of LES Bio
8 ?
of develop
by Renwick
es, and spli
nd launche
velopment
s. In compa
rence with t
was 27.5%.
rend to the
g supports t
for dispar
thods
owing steps
d scope of t
basis, of va
uation appr
oPharma Roy
pment and
and McCa
t these by s
d.
rison, the m
the pre?POC
use of tiere
the use of t
ity betwee
s:
the valuatio
alue.
roach.
yalty Rate an
© Wolters K
royalty ra
arthy
10
ana
stage of dev
median roya
C group’s m
ed royalties
tiered royalt
n the sales
on.
nd Deal Term
Kluwer Law &
ates occurs
lysed the r
velopment,
alty of 3.5%
median of 5.
s as predict
ties for larg
s predicted
ms Survey
& Business
s in the
royalties
, namely
% for the
.0%. The
ted sales
ger value
d by the
? 19 ? © Wolters Kluwer Law & Business
(v) Selection of the method of valuation.
(vi) Determination of the valuation assumptions.
(vii) Cross checks of the findings.
Purpose and Scope
The level of detail and rigour required in a valuation ranges between an indicative valuation
and a formal valuation opinion. It is important to match deliverables with the purpose of the
valuation. It is inappropriate to commission an indicative valuation for the purpose of
litigation, financial reporting or transfer pricing, but in other instances management only
needs to know the order of magnitude of an asset’s value in order to make a commercial
decision.
Valuation reports must always indicate whether there is a limitation of scope.
Asset Definitions
A clear definition of the subject asset is especially important for intangible assets as terms
such as ‘technology’ and ‘brand’ are subject to different interpretations. It is necessary to
identify the specific rights that are bundled into a generic heading. The extent of rights
within the package can have a significant impact on its earnings potential and value.
The term ‘technology’ can include patents, patent applications, design rights, trade secrets,
software and documented know?how. Similarly, there is no generally accepted definition of
the term ‘brand’. This is sometimes used in reference to trademarks and associated
goodwill, while on other occasions it includes recipes, formulae, design rights and copyright.
It extreme cases the term is used to describe a branded business unit, consisting of both
tangible and intangible assets.
When interactions between intellectual property rights are intense, they are treated as
complimentary assets – both for transactional and valuation purposes.
Premise or Basis of Valuation
Value is in the eye of the beholder, so it is essential to determine whether an asset is to be
valued from the perspective of the current owner (value in use), a typical purchaser (market
value), a specific purchaser (investment value), or an unwilling seller (liquidation value).
The purpose of the valuation will usually determine the appropriate premise of value. In
most commercial situations, market value is the appropriate premise. International
Valuation Standards define market value as:
? 20 ? © Wolters Kluwer Law & Business
“The estimated amount which a property should exchange on the date of valuation between
a willing buyer and a willing seller in an arm’s?length transaction after proper marketing
wherein the parties had each acted knowledgeably, prudently, and without compulsion.”
11
Valuation Approaches
There are three valuation approaches, namely the cost approach, sales comparison (or
market) approach, and the income approach.
Cost approach ? This approach values the IP on the basis of its historic cost of creation, or
the estimated cost to create a replacement asset with similar commercial utility.
Consideration is given to all costs (expressed in current values) associated with replacing or
replicating the IP, less an allowance for any forms of obsolescence that has occurred.
The cost approach is only appropriate for valuing easily replicable assets. The non?linear
relationship between the development cost of certain IP and its value must be born in mind.
This is reflected in a situation where millions of dollars in R&D are incurred on unsuccessful
technology that has negligible value.
Sales comparison approach ? This approach establishes value by comparison to recent sales
of comparable assets. Information regarding the standalone sales of patents and trademarks
are sometimes available; however, IP is more frequently sold as part of a business
combination. The unique nature of IP means that even if sales prices for comparable IP are
available, adjustments are required for differences in the utility of the asset and for factors
such as the relative market conditions at the time of the sale and the remaining economic
life.
Income Approach ? Finance theory holds that the amount that a rational investor will pay for
a business or asset is the cash flow that it is expected to generate, discounted by the cost of
capital (which takes account of the asset’s risk profile).
The income approach is generally the most appropriate approach for valuing patents and
trademarks. As illustrated in Diagram 12, it involves:
Identifying the current income generated by the IP. For property that is integrated into a
business unit, this will involve determining the portion of the earnings that are attributed
to the IP. (The next section describes some of the available methods.)
Deducting associated costs.
11
International Valuation Standards, Seventh Edition, 5.2 page 27.
Dete
dura
diffe
the
sign
Fore
econ
fact
Calc
each
on
mar
Disc
Diagram
Earning
discoun
be discr
ermining th
ation of a p
ers by indu
other hand
s of impairm
ecasting th
nomic con
ors.
culating a d
h dollar ear
governmen
rket), and sp
counting the
12: Illustratio
s multiples
nted cash flo
retely analy
he useful e
patent. The
stry and ta
d, brands ar
ment.
he rate of
ditions, ind
iscount rat
rned in futu
nt bonds),
pecific risks
e forecast IP
on of a Discoun
s can be u
ow method
ysed.
? 21
economic l
useful eco
akes accoun
re generally
earnings g
dustry tren
e. The disco
re years. It
the marke
attached to
P earnings b
nted Cash Flo
sed as a p
d is theoreti
1 ?
ife of the
onomic life
nt of the lik
y assumed t
growth. Gr
nds, compe
ount rate is
is a functio
et risk prem
o the comp
back to a pr
w Valuation
proxy for fu
ically more
IP. This co
of technolo
kelihood of
to have an
rowth rate
etitive perf
s used to d
n of three f
mium (extr
any and IP.
resent value
uture cash
robust as i
© Wolters K
oncept diffe
ogy will be
technology
indefinite li
s take acc
formance,
etermine th
factors: the
a risk app
e.
So
flow and
t requires k
Kluwer Law &
ers from t
a finite per
y obsolesce
ife unless t
count of e
and asset
he current
risk free ra
lying to th
ource: Brand F
risk, howe
key value d
& Business
he legal
riod that
ence. On
here are
expected
specific
value of
ate (yield
he share
Finance plc
ver, the
rivers to
? 22 ? © Wolters Kluwer Law & Business
The income approach is reliant on the ability to make reasonable estimates of future
earnings; this can complicate its use for the valuation of early stage technology which will
not be commercialised for some years. This is discussed later in the chapter.
There are a number of income based valuation methods.
Income Based Valuation Methods
The income based valuation methods are closely linked to the methods of royalty
determination, which have already been discussed.
Relief from Royalty: This is a commercially orientated method that is based on the
assumption that if the subject IP was not owned, it would have to be licensed from a third
party, and a royalty paid. The value of the IP is represented by the present value of the
notional royalty stream that ownership relieves the business from paying. The capital value
of the asset is calculated using either a discounted cash flow or multiple to arrive at the
current value of the forecast notional royalty stream. Determination of the notional royalty
rate will use one of the methods discussed in section 3 of this chapter.
Profit Split: This is similar to the profit split method of royalty determination. Rather than
expressing the subject IP’s profit contribution as a percentage of sales, the dollar amount is
forecast into the future and discounted back to a present value. The profit contribution of
the subject IP can be determined through quantitative research or qualitative weightings of
value drivers.
Residual Earnings: This method values the IP as the present value of the future residual cash
flow after deducting returns for all other assets required to operate the business. The first
step is to make a charge to operating profit for net tangible assets and routine intangibles.
Thereafter, charges are made for identifiable intangible assets that have already been
valued. As long as it has been established that the subject IP is the only remaining asset, the
residual earnings are attributed to it. The rate used to calculate the charge made for each
asset category takes account of the company’s cost of capital and the asset’s risk profile.
Incremental cash flow method: The incremental cash flow method identifies the cash flow
generated by the subject IP through comparison with a business that is comparable in all
other respects, but does not have similar IP. The evaluation of incremental cash flows
considers increased revenues and reduced costs. Although conceptually sound, this method
is difficult to apply in practice.
? 23 ? © Wolters Kluwer Law & Business
Valuation Assumptions
The rigour of an IP valuation is heavily dependent on the quality of the assumptions. A
formal valuation report will include a significant amount of analysis to support each
assumption, and clearly state all data sources. Less rigour is required for an indicative
valuation.
As illustrated in Diagram 12, the key assumptions of a discounted cash flow valuation are the
current earnings of the subject IP, forecast growth, discount rate, and the useful economic
life of the asset.
When the sales comparison approach is used, it is necessary to evaluate the extent of the
similarities and differences of the comparable transactions as compared to the subject IP.
The reasons for any adjustments should be articulated and the supporting analysis disclosed
together with the data sources.
Key assumptions in cost based valuations include any decisions as to whether components of
historic R&D are relevant to the replacement of the asset, inflationary adjustments, and
obsolescence provisions.
Valuation Sense Checks
As with royalty determination, IP valuations benefit from the use of more than one method
and from commercial sense checks. For instance, if the income approach has been used, the
implied earnings multiple should be considered for reasonableness. The cost of replicating
the IP, or producing an asset of similar utility, should always be considered as it represents
the ceiling to the valuation.
It is advisable to carry out sensitivity analysis to determine the value impact of changes in
key valuation assumptions, and to disclose the impact of these in the report.
Contents of a Valuation Report
A formal valuation report should contain the following information:
The scope of the valuation and any limitations or restrictions to its scope.
The purpose for which the valuation report has been prepared.
A clear description of the asset being valued.
The date at which the value has been determined, and the date on which the report has
been issued.
? 24 ? © Wolters Kluwer Law & Business
The basis, approach and method of valuation.
A conclusion of value.
Sufficient details of the valuation and underlying assumptions to allow a reader to
understand how the conclusion was reached.
The name, qualifications and experience of the valuer.
6. Conclusion
Decisions regarding the value of IP, and associated royalty rates, have far reaching
commercial consequences. This justifies thorough analysis of potential IP earnings prior to a
transaction, and careful consideration of the value impact of the terms of the agreement.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
doc_843863730.pdf