CAD / PLM and Patent Wars

by Oleg on August 23, 2011 · View Comments

I know, patent stories are hot now. After Google decided to pay Motorola the premium of USD 12.5B to defend Android from potential lawsuits, the question about how much software companies are ready to pay to prevent themselves from a potential patent war becomes obvious. I read Techcrunch article – The Terrible Cost of Patents. Have a read and make your opinion. I found the following passage interesting:

Technology products, and software especially, are never created from whole cloth. By their very nature, they build upon previous technologies and improve upon them. But what you and I might consider an improvement, a patent lawyer might consider infringement. Figuring out which patents your product might infringe upon is a nearly impossible task. A single smartphone might involve 250,000 patent claims, which may or may not be valid. The fact that the Patent Office approves many bogus patents does not help matters. So..

Patents were originally conceived to protect inventors—people and companies who contribute to the advancement of society by creating new products. But in the past decade, something went horribly wrong. Patents are increasingly becamenothing more than financial and legal weapons, to be amassed in portfolios by “non-practicing entities” (i.e. patent trolls) and used to extort protection money from economically productive companies.

It wasn’t absolutely new thing for me. However, it is quite shocking to see the amount of money software and technological companies are spending on patent-ecosystem.

CAD / PLM Patents

Well, I’m obviously not pretending to provide an exhaustive study about CAD /PLM patents. Techcrunch article and corresponded numbers definitely made me think about what is the situation with patents in CAD / PLM. Is it possible to estimate how much CAD / PLM vendors are spending on patents and what is the chance of potential patent war between these companies?.

I have to say that searching for patents is a tricky thing. Sometimes, companies are using multiple techniques to prevent patents from being discoverable by competitors. Since, my goal wasn’t to provide exact numbers, I just made very rough estimations of patents based on a single attribute of a patent – Assignee Name. This method is also questionable, because of company name changes. However, I consider that naming will be quite stable for the following company names – Autodesk Inc, Dassault Systemes, Parametric Technology and UGS Corp. The last one was the most problematic elements for me, since it definitely wasn’t able to cover patents that belonging to Siemens PLM (new name of UGS Corp after acquisition). To estimate results, I used Google Patent Search and Free Patents Search online.

Results according to the Google:

Autodesk Inc. – 10’800 results
Dassault Systemes – 1’680 results
UGS Corp. – 505 results
Parametric Technology – 395 results

Results according to the Free Patent Search:

Autodesk Inc. – 622 results
Dassault Systemes – 105 results
UGS Corp. – 33
Parametric Technology – 24

I have to tell you that as soon as you will dig inside of the content of patents you can find lots of interesting stuff related to systems, and invention described there. I don’t want to point on my favorites, but I’m pretty sure everyone will find something to think about…

What is my conclusion? I want to make an exception in today’s blog and will not make “my conclusion” as I usually do. I assume everybody in the hightech and software industry have their “love and hate” relationships with patents, patent lawyers and USPTO. I’d be interested to know your opinion if you think CAD / PLM competition can follow “patent war” routes. What is your opinion? Speak your mind?

Best, Oleg

  • Share/Bookmark
  • Jonathan_Scott

    I wonder if Autodesk's patent CAD/PLM portfolio looks inflated because of the number of patents created in their entertainment portfolio  I know the numbers above certainly aren't exhaustive or fully analyzed, but I wonder if entertainment-related IP is skewing the results. Nonetheless, it raises an interesting question about who might acquire whom in the CAD/PLM space. By the numbers listed above, it seems Autodesk would be a pretty attractive target.  Microsoft, Oracle, SAP...are you guys shopping? ;)

  • beyondplm

    Jonathan, as you understand, I didn't make an intensive research of Autodesk patent portfolio. After Google/Moto, the topic will definitely raise more conversation inside of organizations these days. Autodesk, Dassault and other are included :). Best, Oleg 

  • Satanas_g

    The fact is that major CAD/PLM compagnies aren't fighting with the same strenght as Mobile Phones Compagnies.
    So it doesn't have any effect on their product innovation.
    What do you think should happens if PTC had patented the parametric modeler in the late 80's and fight anyone who use a parametric modeler ? It will had stopped innovation in this area even if customers requires this functionality.

  • beyondplm

    You are asking the right question. I can give another example- what if HP will try to fight everybody on the following patent - METHOD OF MANAGING WORKFLOW IN COMPUTER BASED SYSTEMS - http://www.google.com/patents?...

  • US Patent No: 5815154. Now imagine if DS decided to enforce that patent.

    Al

  • AK

    "Enforcing a patent" is pretty expensive adventure for the enforcer - good patent lawyers (which enforcer definitely needs in this case) charge about $1,000 \ hour. The bill very quickly gets to several millions - trust me on this one. The biggest problem though that the result could be negative and the patent could be invalidated by many reasons - the other side proves the "obviousness" of the patent; a new prior art which the PTO didn't discover was found by other side (keep in mind that PTO is not very well funded and usually discovers only very obvious prior art; lawyers of the sued party usually times better in such discoveries); etc. By all these reasons very small percentage of issued patents (especially in software) are really enforceable (otherwise we would see 10s or 100s times more patent litigation cases). At least on the first glance the US Patent No: 5815154 doesn't look very enforceable to me.

  • beyondplm

    It is actually very interesting analyzes. What are the characteristics that allow you to identify the 5815154 patent as not enforceable? Thanks for commenting. Oleg

  • Jonathan_Scott

    That's a very telling point, Al. It (US Patent No: 5815154) might be more valuable to Dassault as an unplayed card. It supports my opinion about patent wars in the CAD/PLM space: Today vendors are building up their arsenals as a defensive measure, and in anticipation of being acquired in the future (their patents may make them "extra" valuable, much like Motorola's patents).

  • beyondplm

    Jonathan, I agree with your point. Vendors are building arsenals. The potential war (or extra valuation for the potential acquisition) is probably in the future. Thanks for comments! Oleg

  • beyondplm

    Good pick, Al. This is famous SolidWorks "feature modeler"... If you paid attention, one of the inventors is Stephen (Steve) Krug - the author of a famous book "Don't Make Me Think" - http://plmtwine.com/2010/06/07.... The funny part of the story is that I just discussed this patent with Steve yesterday. Best, Oleg

blog comments powered by Disqus

Previous post:

Next post: