Patent Licensing Negotiations: A Technical Perspective

This article provides general information about patent licensing negotiations from a technical analysis perspective. It does not constitute legal advice. We recommend consulting qualified legal counsel for specific licensing matters.

Patent licensing negotiations represent a complex intersection of legal rights, technical innovation, and business strategy. While legal counsel focuses on contract terms and risk allocation, technical analysis—claim scope assessment, infringement strength evaluation, design-around feasibility, and prior art assessment—provides the foundation for informed patent licensing negotiations and fair royalty determinations.12

In our experience supporting clients through licensing discussions, we consistently find that thorough technical preparation determines outcomes more than negotiating tactics alone. Whether you're representing a patent holder seeking licensing revenue or a potential licensee evaluating infringement exposure, technical analysis guides every critical decision. We've seen companies accept unfavourable terms simply because they lacked the technical groundwork to negotiate effectively—and we've helped others secure significantly better agreements by providing rigorous patent analysis.

When Patent Licensing Makes Strategic Sense

Alternative to Costly Litigation

Patent litigation costs vary significantly based on the amount at risk. In the United States, median costs through trial and appeal range from $600K for disputes with less than $1M at stake to $5M for cases with over $25M at risk, according to the 2023 AIPLA Economic Survey.350 In the United Kingdom, Patents Court litigation typically costs between £500,000 and £2 million through trial, though the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC) offers a cost-capped alternative with maximum recoverable costs of £60,000, making it suitable for disputes valued under £500,000.62 These significant expenses make licensing negotiations an attractive alternative—offering a faster, less expensive path to resolve intellectual property disputes while allowing both parties to focus resources on innovation rather than courtroom battles.

In our work, we frequently help clients evaluate whether licensing or litigation better serves their commercial objectives. For patent holders, licensing generates immediate revenue without the uncertainty of court outcomes. The Georgia-Pacific factors, established in Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. United States Plywood Corp. (1970), provide courts with 15 factors for determining reasonable royalty damages, but litigation outcomes remain unpredictable.4 A negotiated licence provides certainty that court judgments cannot guarantee.

Alternative to Design-Around Challenges

When faced with potential infringement, companies can either licence the patent or attempt to design around it. Design-around involves developing non-infringing alternatives by eliminating, substituting, or avoiding essential claim elements.5 However, design-around efforts carry risks:

• Technical feasibility: Some patents cover fundamental approaches with limited alternatives
• Development costs: Creating workarounds may require significant R&D investment
• Market timing: Design-around delays can cost valuable time-to-market advantages
• Continued infringement risk: Poorly executed design-arounds may still fall within claim scope

We regularly help clients evaluate whether design-around is commercially viable or whether licensing represents the more strategic choice. Our technical analysis quantifies each option, giving decision-makers the data they need.6

Proactive vs. Reactive Licensing

Proactive licensing occurs before any infringement dispute, often as part of strategic technology access or portfolio cross-licensing arrangements. Companies like IBM generate billions annually from proactive licensing programmes, monetising innovation while avoiding enforcement costs.7

Reactive licensing emerges after infringement claims arise. While reactive scenarios involve higher stakes and time pressure, they also provide more concrete data about actual product overlap with patent claims, enabling more precise royalty calculations.8 In our experience, clients who engage us early in reactive situations—before positions harden—typically achieve more favourable outcomes than those who delay technical analysis.

Technical Analysis Foundations for Licensing

Claim Scope Assessment: Understanding Patent Coverage

Patent claim construction defines the boundaries of patent protection and forms the foundation for all licensing analysis.9 Under the Markman doctrine established in Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (1996), claim construction is exclusively a question of law for judges to determine, not juries.51 Courts consider three primary sources when construing claims: the literal language of the claim, the patent specification, and the prosecution history.51 Claims are defined along two dimensions: functionality (technical specificity) and application (industry scope).10

When we conduct claim scope assessment for clients, we focus on answering fundamental questions:

• What specific technical elements does each patent claim require?
• How broadly or narrowly should claim terms be interpreted?
• What variations or equivalents might fall within claim scope?
• Which claims present the strongest coverage of commercial products?

Claim mapping creates systematic comparisons between patent claim elements and potentially infringing products or services through a structured three-step methodology: (1) detailed claim analysis including prosecution record and prior art discussions, (2) thorough product investigation through teardown, firmware analysis, and independent testing, and (3) element-to-evidence mapping with direct citations to supporting documentation.1158 This process creates the evidentiary foundation for infringement analysis and serves multiple purposes including litigation preparation, licensing negotiations, and due diligence.1258

Infringement Strength Analysis

Technical experts evaluate infringement under multiple theories:

Direct Literal Infringement: Does the accused product contain every element of at least one patent claim, interpreted literally?13

Doctrine of Equivalents: If literal infringement is absent, does the accused product perform substantially the same function, in substantially the same way, to achieve substantially the same result?13

Induced or Contributory Infringement: For system or method claims, does the accused party encourage or enable others to perform the patented process?13

Strong infringement positions justify higher royalty demands, while weak infringement theories suggest more conservative licensing approaches.

Prior Art and Validity Assessment

Patent validity directly affects licensing value. Invalid patents provide no enforcement leverage, making prior art analysis crucial for both parties.14 When we conduct prior art searches for licensing support, we identify:

• Published patents and patent applications predating the patent-in-suit
• Academic publications and technical literature
• Commercial products and industry standards existing before the patent's priority date
• Non-patent prior art including conference presentations, product manuals, and open-source code15

WIPO guidance emphasises the importance of comprehensive prior art evaluation in licensing due diligence, noting that validity challenges can significantly impact negotiation leverage.16 We've seen numerous negotiations where our prior art findings fundamentally shifted the balance of power—sometimes revealing that a patent holder's position was far weaker than they claimed.

Design-Around Feasibility Assessment

For potential licensees, understanding alternatives to licensing strengthens negotiating position by establishing credible BATNA (Best Alternative to Negotiated Agreement).17 Design-around analysis examines:

Technical Alternatives: Can essential claim elements be eliminated, substituted, or avoided while maintaining product functionality?18

Implementation Costs: What resources would alternative approaches require for development, testing, and commercialization?

Market Impact: How would design-around solutions affect product performance, cost structure, or competitive positioning?

Timeline Considerations: Can alternatives be implemented within business timelines, or would delays offset licensing costs?

Research using TRIZ (Theory of Inventive Problem Solving) methodology demonstrates systematic approaches to identifying design-around solutions through a four-stage process: (1) design-around target definition through patent claim decomposition, (2) problem identification by trimming patent features, (3) problem solving using contradiction resolution and function-oriented search, and (4) solution evaluation.1955 This methodology has been successfully applied to generate new granted patents in China while avoiding infringement of competitor patents.55 We apply similar systematic methodologies in our design-around feasibility assessments, ensuring clients understand all available options before entering licensing discussions.

Royalty Determination and Valuation

Georgia-Pacific Framework for Reasonable Royalties

The 15 Georgia-Pacific factors established in Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. United States Plywood Corp., 318 F. Supp. 1116 (S.D.N.Y. 1970), remain the primary framework for reasonable royalty determination in U.S. courts, though academic scholars argue the framework is outdated and conceptually problematic.2052 Key factors particularly relevant to technical analysis include:

• Factor 1: Existing licensing royalties for the patent-in-suit
• Factor 8: Commercial success and popularity of patented products
• Factor 9: Utility and advantages over prior art devices
• Factor 13: Proportion of profit attributable to patented vs. unpatented elements
• Factor 15: Hypothetical negotiation outcome between willing parties21

Recent academic proposals suggest replacing Georgia-Pacific with a simplified four-factor approach focused on: (1) incremental value contributed by the invention, (2) value from non-invention factors, (3) comparable agreements, and (4) commercial considerations regarding licensing desire.52 Technical experts contribute critical analysis for factors 8, 9, and 13 by quantifying patent contribution to product success and isolating patented from unpatented value.2253

FRAND Considerations for Standard-Essential Patents

For standard-essential patents (SEPs), Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) licensing commitments impose additional constraints.23 FRAND royalty determination addresses:

• Patent holdup: Preventing excessive royalty demands based on implementation lock-in
• Royalty stacking: Avoiding cumulative royalty burdens from multiple SEP holders
• Incremental value: Focusing royalties on patent-specific contributions rather than standard adoption benefits24

Recent Federal Circuit decisions emphasize the complexity of FRAND royalty calculations. In TCL Communication Technology Holdings v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (2019), the Federal Circuit vacated a district court's "top-down" royalty calculation, ruling that Ericsson had a constitutional right to a jury trial on reasonable royalty rates.54 In October 2024, the Federal Circuit further clarified FRAND enforcement by making antisuit injunctions easier to obtain, preventing SEP holders from leveraging foreign injunctions while domestic FRAND negotiations are ongoing.54 Courts continue mandating new trials when damages methodologies fail to properly account for FRAND obligations.25

Economic Valuation Methods

Academic research identifies several approaches for patent valuation in licensing contexts, with scholars emphasizing that patent value fundamentally depends on portfolio aggregation rather than individual patent worth:2656

Cost Method: Calculates reproduction or replacement costs, useful for foundational technologies but challenging when parties dispute development expenses.

Market Method: Uses comparable licensing transactions to establish benchmarks, though truly comparable deals are often unavailable.

Income Method: Projects discounted cash flows from patent commercialization, requiring reliable market adoption and competitive data.

Real Options Method: Pioneered by Pakes (1984), treats patents as real options using renewal decisions to estimate patent values and returns from holding patent stocks.2756

Portfolio-Level Analysis: Recent scholarship shows that despite rising patent intensity, individual patent values have diminished, but portfolio-level benefits remain substantial, with valuation depending on citation timing, patterns, and technology-specific factors.56

The 25% rule, suggesting licensees should pay 25% of profits attributable to patented technology, provides a rough benchmark but requires careful application to specific circumstances.28 Industrial organisation economic theory reveals that optimal licensing mechanisms depend on innovation magnitude and market structure, with three primary approaches: fixed fees, per-unit royalties, and licence auctions.61 Research shows that royalty-based licensing can outperform fixed-fee licensing for non-drastic innovations when the patent holder maintains production operations, though fixed fees generally produce superior consumer welfare outcomes.61 In our valuation work, we typically apply multiple methodologies and compare results to establish defensible royalty ranges.

Strategic Perspectives: Licensor and Licensee

For Patent Holders (Licensors)

Portfolio Leverage: Strong patent portfolios enable broader licensing programs addressing multiple infringement theories and providing negotiation flexibility.29 Cross-licensing arrangements can resolve mutual infringement risks while generating revenue from non-practicing competitors.

Infringement Demonstration: Technical analysis must clearly document infringement across representative products or services. Claim mapping provides the evidentiary foundation for licensing discussions, while expert analysis explains technical overlap to business negotiators.30

Royalty Justification: Licensors must support royalty demands with objective analysis. Georgia-Pacific factor analysis, comparable licence evidence, and technical contribution assessments provide the foundation for reasonable royalty claims.31

Validity Defence: Anticipating and addressing validity challenges strengthens licensing positions. Comprehensive prior art analysis and technical differentiation help defend patent value against invalidity arguments.32

For Potential Licensees

Exposure Assessment: Understanding actual infringement risk prevents over-payment for unnecessary licences. Technical analysis should evaluate infringement under multiple claim construction scenarios and identify potential non-infringement arguments.33

Validity Evaluation: Prior art searches and technical analysis may reveal patent weaknesses, strengthening negotiating position or suggesting inter partes review challenges as alternatives to licensing.34

Design-Around Options: Feasibility assessment of non-infringing alternatives provides negotiating leverage and establishes acceptable licensing cost thresholds.35

Portfolio Assessment: For ongoing relationships, evaluate the full scope of potential patent exposure across current and future products, enabling comprehensive licensing rather than claim-by-claim negotiations.36

Settlement vs. License Agreement Structures

During-Litigation Settlements

Patent settlements resolve existing infringement disputes and typically include:37

• Dismissal of pending litigation with prejudice
• Release of claims for past infringement damages
• Future licensing terms preventing additional disputes
• Covenant not to sue provisions protecting ongoing activities

Settlement negotiations occur under litigation pressure, often compressing timelines and increasing stakes compared to proactive licensing discussions. Empirical studies reveal that only about 5% of patent cases go to trial, with an additional 8-9% resolved through summary judgment, meaning the vast majority settle before adjudication.59 Moreover, most patent enforcement occurs outside litigation entirely, with survey data showing roughly one-third of patent licensing efforts end in litigation, while two-thirds are resolved through negotiation without filing suit.59

Pre-Litigation Licensing

Standard patent licences address ongoing commercial relationships and include:38

• Grant clauses defining licensed technology scope
• Territory and field-of-use restrictions
• Royalty structures and payment terms
• Improvements and derivative works provisions
• Termination and dispute resolution mechanisms

Pre-litigation licensing allows more thorough due diligence and strategic positioning but may lack urgency that motivates settlement agreements.

The Technical Expert's Role in Negotiations

Pre-Negotiation Analysis

Technical experts provide the analytical foundation for licensing strategy through:

Claim Construction Analysis: Interpreting patent language and identifying key technical elements that define infringement scope, ensuring compliance with Federal Rule of Evidence 702, which requires expert testimony be based on sufficient facts, reliable principles and methods, and specialised knowledge that helps the fact-finder.3957

Product Mapping: Creating detailed comparisons between patent claims and commercial products, establishing the factual basis for infringement or non-infringement arguments.40

Prior Art Investigation: Conducting comprehensive searches to identify validity risks and technical differentiation that supports patent value.41

Alternative Assessment: Evaluating design-around options and competitive technologies that establish negotiating alternatives.42

During Negotiations

Expert support during licensing discussions includes:

Technical Clarification: Explaining complex patent claims and product features to business negotiators, ensuring accurate understanding of technical issues.

Real-Time Analysis: Evaluating proposed licence terms, including field-of-use restrictions and improvement clauses, for technical feasibility and business impact.

Damage Calculations: Supporting royalty discussions with technical analysis of patent contribution, comparable licences, and reasonable royalty factors.

Documentation and Support

Technical experts document analyses for future reference and potential litigation support:

Infringement Analysis Reports: Detailed claim-by-claim comparison with supporting evidence and technical explanations.

Validity Study Reports: Comprehensive prior art analysis with technical differentiation arguments.

Design-Around Feasibility Studies: Engineering analysis of alternative approaches with cost and timeline estimates.43

Practical Guidance for Technical Professionals

Preparation Phase

1. Assemble Cross-Functional Teams: Include business development, technical experts, decision-makers, and legal counsel to ensure comprehensive analysis.44

2. Conduct Thorough Due Diligence: Patent portfolio evaluation follows a structured four-step process: patent family searching, patent status searching, patent validity searching, and patent infringement searching.4560 This systematic approach, supported by WIPO guidelines and UK IPO standards, helps identify both strengths and weaknesses in patent portfolios before licensing negotiations.60

3. Understand Your BATNA: Clearly define alternatives to licensing, including design-around options, competing technologies, and business model changes.46

4. Define Clear Objectives: Establish specific goals for licensing discussions, including acceptable royalty ranges, essential terms, and deal-breaker issues.47

Negotiation Strategy

1. Lead with Technical Analysis: Ground discussions in objective technical assessment rather than starting with business positions or legal arguments.

2. Address Both Perspectives: Understand technical arguments from both licensor and licensee viewpoints to identify common ground and areas of genuine dispute.

3. Document Technical Positions: Maintain detailed records of technical analysis and expert opinions to support licensing terms and future enforcement or defence.

4. Focus on Value Creation: Identify opportunities for mutually beneficial arrangements, including cross-licensing, joint development, or field-of-use divisions.48

Critical Mistakes in Patent Licensing Negotiations

Based on our experience supporting licensing negotiations across multiple industries, we've identified several critical mistakes that consistently undermine outcomes. Avoiding these pitfalls can significantly improve your negotiating position.

Mistakes Licensees Make

Mistake	Why It Hurts	Better Approach
Accepting patent validity at face value	Patent holders rarely volunteer weakness in their position; many patents have significant prior art vulnerabilities	Commission independent prior art search before negotiations begin
Negotiating without claim mapping	Without detailed technical analysis, you cannot assess actual infringement risk or identify non-infringement arguments	Complete element-by-element claim mapping for accused products
Ignoring design-around options	Without alternatives, you have no negotiating leverage and must accept whatever terms are offered	Assess design-around feasibility to establish BATNA and acceptable cost thresholds
Rushing due to litigation pressure	Time pressure leads to overpayment; patent holders exploit urgency	Request reasonable evaluation periods; courts often grant time for good-faith settlement discussions
Signing without understanding scope	Licence grants, field-of-use restrictions, and improvement clauses can significantly impact future business	Have technical experts review proposed terms for commercial implications

Mistakes Licensors Make

Mistake	Why It Hurts	Better Approach
Overstating patent strength	Experienced licensees will discover weaknesses; credibility loss undermines negotiations	Present balanced technical assessment acknowledging both strengths and limitations
Demanding unrealistic royalties	Drives potential licensees toward litigation or design-around rather than agreement	Base royalty demands on objective analysis including Georgia-Pacific factors and comparable licences
Failing to document infringement	Vague infringement assertions invite challenge and reduce settlement leverage	Prepare detailed claim charts mapping patent elements to specific product features
Ignoring portfolio weaknesses	One invalid patent can undermine entire licensing programme	Address potential invalidity concerns proactively with technical differentiation arguments
Using adversarial framing	Aggressive tactics increase litigation risk and reduce likelihood of ongoing commercial relationship	Frame discussions as mutual value creation rather than enforcement threats

Due Diligence Checklist for Technical Analysis

Patent Assessment:

• Claim construction analysis for all asserted patents
• Prior art search and validity assessment
• Patent family analysis including continuations and divisionals
• Prosecution history review for claim scope limitations

Product Analysis:

• Detailed claim mapping to accused products
• Infringement analysis under literal infringement and doctrine of equivalents
• Non-infringement arguments and claim construction positions
• Design-around feasibility and cost assessment

Market Analysis:

• Competitive landscape and alternative technologies
• Industry standard royalty rates and comparable licences
• Market size and growth projections for licensed technology
• Customer and supplier implications of licensing agreements49

Conclusion

Patent licensing negotiations succeed when grounded in thorough technical analysis that informs business strategy. Understanding claim scope, infringement strength, validity risks, and design-around alternatives enables both licensors and licensees to negotiate from positions of knowledge rather than uncertainty.

In our experience, the investment in comprehensive technical analysis pays dividends throughout the licensing process—from initial negotiations through ongoing relationship management. We consistently find that clients who engage technical experts early achieve more favourable outcomes than those who treat technical analysis as an afterthought.

Whether you're supporting licensing programmes, evaluating infringement exposure, or assessing portfolio value, technical analysis provides the objective foundation for fair and informed patent licensing agreements. The key is ensuring your agreements reflect actual technical value rather than negotiating leverage alone.

---

Technical Analysis Checklist for Patent Licensing Negotiations

Pre-Negotiation Technical Analysis

Claim Scope Assessment:

• Identify all independent and dependent claims
• Analyse claim construction for key limitations
• Map claim elements to product features
• Evaluate claim breadth and coverage

Infringement Analysis:

• Literal infringement analysis for each claim
• Doctrine of equivalents evaluation
• Indirect infringement theories (induced/contributory)
• Non-infringement positions and arguments

Validity Assessment:

• Prior art search (patent and non-patent literature)
• Obviousness analysis under Graham v. John Deere factors
• Written description and enablement review
• Prosecution history estoppel analysis

Design-Around Evaluation:

• Technical alternatives identification
• Implementation costs and timelines
• Performance impact assessment
• Market viability of alternatives

Royalty Analysis Framework

Value Assessment:

• Technical contribution analysis
• Comparable licence benchmarking
• Georgia-Pacific factor evaluation
• Patent portfolio strength assessment

BATNA Development:

• Alternative technology options
• Design-around feasibility
• Competitive positioning analysis
• Business model impacts

---

Sources

[1] Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. United States Plywood Corp., 318 F. Supp. 1116 (S.D.N.Y. 1970). Available at: https://www.patentdamagesbook.com/reasonable-royalty/georgia-pacific.html

[2] WIPO. "Exchanging Value – Negotiating Technology Licensing Agreements: A Training Manual." Available at: https://www.wipo.int/publications/en/details.jsp?id=291

[3] American Intellectual Property Law Association. "Report of the Economic Survey 2021." Available at: https://www.aipla.org/home/publications/economic-survey

[4] Elements of Patent Damages. "Georgia-Pacific Factors." Available at: https://www.patentdamagesbook.com/reasonable-royalty/georgia-pacific.html

[5] Wikipedia. "Design Around." Available at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Design_around

[6] IPWatchdog. "Designing Around Patents: An Alternative to License." Available at: https://ipwatchdog.com/2019/07/30/designing-around-patent-alternative-license/id=111683/

[7] IBM Annual Report 2023. Available at: https://www.ibm.com/investor/annual-report

[8] Fuentek LLC. "Lessons from Royalty Negotiations: 3 Stories from the Field." Available at: https://www.fuentek.com/blog-post/lessons-from-royalty-negotiations/

[9] SSRN. "Patent Claim Construction: A Modern Synthesis and Structured Framework." Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1476395

[10] Fenwick & West LLP. "Claim Space Framework." Available at: https://assets.fenwick.com/legacy/FenwickDocuments/Claim_Space.pdf

[11] Intellectual Property Expert Group. "Mapping of Patent Claims." Available at: https://www.ipeg.com/mapping-of-patent-claims/

[12] Intepat. "Understanding Claim Mapping in Patents." Available at: https://www.intepat.com/blog/understanding-claim-mapping-in-patents/

[13] Practical Law. "Patent Litigation: Infringement Expert Report." Available at: https://content.next.westlaw.com/practical-law/document/Id1b19b7bd92211e498db8b09b4f043e0/

[14] USPTO. "Prior Art Search." Available at: https://www.uspto.gov/patents/initiatives/prior-art-search

[15] Georgia Tech Office of Technology Licensing. "Searching for Prior Art." Available at: https://licensing.research.gatech.edu/researcher-toolkit/searching-prior-art

[16] WIPO. "IP Panorama Learning Points." Available at: https://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/sme/en/documents/pdf/ip_panorama_7_learning_points.pdf

[17] Harvard Business School Program on Negotiation. "Best Alternative to a Negotiated Agreement." Available at: https://pon.harvard.edu/tag/best-alternative-to-a-negotiated-agreement

[18] dIPlex. "A Systematic Approach to Finding Workarounds." Available at: https://profwurzer.com/diplex/docs/patent-circumvention-using-patent-figures/a-systematic-approach-to-finding-workarounds

[19] ScienceDirect. "A TRIZ-based Trimming Method for Patent Design Around." Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0010448514002346

[20] Leagle. "Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. United States Plywood Corp." Available at: https://www.leagle.com/decision/1971741446f2d2951647

[21] IP Glossary. "Georgia-Pacific Factors." Available at: https://www.ipglossary.com/glossary/georgia-pacific-factors/

[22] Mondaq. "Navigating Between The 'Hypothetical Negotiation' And Real World Facts In Proving Patent Damages." Available at: https://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/patent/414910/

[23] Springer. "Methodologies for Calculating FRAND Damages." Available at: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s41020-017-0048-9.pdf

[24] Sedona Conference. "Framework for Analysis of SEP and FRAND Licensing." Available at: https://www.thesedonaconference.org/sites/default/files/publications/Framework-for-Analysis-of-SEP-and-FRAND-Licensing-and-Royalty-Issues-US-Edition_0.pdf

[25] Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. "Optis v. Apple Decision." Available at: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/22-1925.OPINION.6-16-2025_2530981.pdf

[26] SSRN. "Valuation of Patent Licenses." Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=777765

[27] WIPO. "Intellectual Property Valuation Basics for Technology Transfer Professionals." Available at: https://www.wipo.int/web-publications/intellectual-property-valuation-basics-for-technology-transfer-professionals/

[28] SSRN. "Valuing Patents for Licensing: A Practical Survey of the Literature." Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1440292

[29] Clarivate. "Identify License Opportunities in Your Patent Portfolio." Available at: https://clarivate.com/intellectual-property/training-support/derwent/research-guides/identify-license-opportunities-in-your-patent-portfolio

[30] Sagacious Research. "How to Perform Claim Mapping or Prepare EOU Charts." Available at: https://sagaciousresearch.com/blog/how-to-perform-claim-mapping-prepare-eou-charts

[31] Oxford Academic. "The Proper Royalty Base for Patent Damages." Available at: https://academic.oup.com/jcle/article/10/4/989/872923

[32] Origiin. "Claim Mapping and Role in Assessing Patent Infringement Risk." Available at: https://origiin.com/claim-mapping-and-role-in-assessing-patent-infringement-risk/

[33] Analysis Group. "Hypothetical Negotiation Royalty Damages." Available at: https://www.analysisgroup.com/globalassets/content/insights/publishing/stlr_hypothetical_negotiation_royalty_damages_jarosz_chapman.pdf

[34] Seton Hall Law Review. "Hypothetical Negotiation and Real World Facts." Available at: https://law.shu.edu/documents/gibbons-iplicensing-negotiating-royalty.pdf

[35] HarnessIP. "How Can You Design Around a Competitor's Patent." Available at: https://www.harnessip.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/How-Can-You-Design-Around-a-Competitors-Patent.pdf

[36] Clarivate. "Patent Search Services." Available at: https://clarivate.com/intellectual-property/patent-intelligence/patent-search-services

[37] Practical Law. "Patent Litigation Licensing and Settlement Toolkit." Available at: https://content.next.westlaw.com/practical-law/document/I952492e95b8f11e498db8b09b4f043e0/

[38] Wiggin LLP. "Patent Licenses: Licensing Fundamentals." Available at: https://www.wiggin.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Patent-Licenses-Licensing-Fundamentals-1.pdf

[39] Justia. "Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. United States Plywood Corp." Available at: https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/318/1116/1480989/

[40] IIPRD. "Commercial Evaluation." Available at: https://www.iiprd.com/commercial-evaluation/

[41] USPTO. "Patent Seven-Step Classification." Available at: https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/patent-7step-classification.pdf

[42] ROI Patents. "Patent Valuation." Available at: https://www.roipatents.com/patent-valuation

[43] TT Consultants. "Patent Claim Settlement Strategies." Available at: https://ttconsultants.com/youve-been-hit-with-a-patent-claim-heres-the-smartest-way-to-settle-fast/

[44] Nature Biotechnology. "Best Practices in Patent License Negotiations." Available at: https://www.nature.com/articles/bioe.2007.5

[45] Practical Law. "Patent License Checklist." Available at: https://content.next.westlaw.com/practical-law/document/I1559f987eef211e28578f7ccc38dcbee/

[46] Harvard Program on Negotiation. "Negotiation Tactics, BATNA and Examples." Available at: https://www.pon.harvard.edu/daily/business-negotiations/prepare-to-create-value-in-business-negotiations/

[47] Peil Law. "Key Considerations When Negotiating a Patent License." Available at: https://peillaw.com/key-considerations-when-negotiating-a-patent-license/

[48] WIPO. "Successful Technology Licensing." Available at: https://www.wipo.int/publications/en/details.jsp?id=296

[49] IPWatchdog. "Cross-licensing Negotiations: A Structured Approach." Available at: https://ipwatchdog.com/2018/01/09/cross-licensing-negotiations-patent-risk-mitigation-case-study/id=91362/

[50] AIPLA. "2023 Report of the Economic Survey." Available at: https://www.aipla.org/detail/journal-issue/2023-report-of-the-economic-survey

[51] Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (1996). Available at: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?about=5582995013670943601

[52] NYU Law. "Breaking the Georgia-Pacific Habit." Available at: https://www.law.nyu.edu/sites/default/files/Breaking%20the%20Georgia-Pacific%20Habit.pdf

[53] Berkeley Center for Law & Technology. "Final Report of the Patent Damages Workshop." Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2823658

[54] Federal Circuit. "TCL v. Ericsson and 2024 FRAND Developments." Available at: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/24-1515.OPINION.10-24-2024_2408080.pdf

[55] ScienceDirect. "TRIZ: Design Problem Solving with Systematic Innovation." Available at: https://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/43585/InTech-Triz_design_problem_solving_with_systematic_innovation.pdf

[56] Journal of Economics & Management Strategy. "The Economic Value of Patent Portfolios." Available at: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jems.12210

[57] Cornell Law School. "Rule 702: Testimony by Expert Witnesses." Available at: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_702

[58] Ocean Tomo. "Claim Chart Methodology." Available at: https://oceantomo.com/services/patent-focused-business-intelligence/patent-infringement-analysis/claim-chart/

[59] SSRN. "How are Patent Cases Resolved? An Empirical Examination." Available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=916365

[60] ScienceDirect. "Patent Due Diligence Technical Analysis Framework." Available at: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0172219009000878

[61] RAND Journal of Economics. "Licensing in the Theory of Innovation." Available at: https://econpapers.repec.org/article/rjerandje/v_3a16_3ay_3a1985_3ai_3asummer_3ap_3a237-252.htm

[62] UK Intellectual Property Office. "Intellectual Property Enterprise Court Guide." Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/intellectual-property-enterprise-court-guide