Hello all,
If you’re still rubbing your eyes over OpenAI’s recent $6.5 billion acquisition of Jony Ive’s hardware startup io, rest assured, you’re not alone. No product. No revenue. Not even a single device on the market. Yet this may go down as one of the most expensive bets ever made purely on intangibles. And yet, is it really that unusual anymore?
Welcome to the age of IQ-to-IP economics, where the most valuable corporate assets can’t be boxed, stored, or insured against fire—only against infringement. More on this below.
I also cover the confirmation hearings for the next USPTO director and what it means to patent holders if the deeds follow the speeches. Finally, I discuss some of what is going on in the world of SEPs.
As usual, as I focus on the macro picture in this newsletter, I want to remind everyone that we track everything that is going on in this world and for those who need their regular dose of news, once again you can follow me on LinkedIn where I post almost daily about some of the most newsworthy events. If you want to catch up on what grabbed my attention these recent weeks, you can access all my posts directly here.
Happy reading!
Louis
__________________
Tangible IP News
Earlier this month, I spoke at the well-attended 7th IP Awareness Summit 2025 in San Francisco for the Center for Intellectual Property Understanding (CIPU). And a few weeks ago, I had the pleasure of speaking at an IP Watchdog webinar on Strategic IP Attacks along with such luminaries are Fred Fabricant and Gene Quinn.
All of our patents for sale are listed here. Similarly, if you’d like to be added on our distribution list in the future so that you are the first to receive new opportunities, please email us at info@tangibleip.biz.
__________________
Trying to Fit Squires in the Patent Hole
If you tuned into the Senate Judiciary Committee on May 21, you might have caught John Squires, President Trump’s nominee for USPTO Director, making his case to the committee. Squires, with a background that includes serving as Chief IP Counsel at Goldman Sachs and a focus on emerging technologies like AI and blockchain, emphasized his commitment to strengthening the U.S. patent system. He advocated for “born-strong” patents, highlighting the need for high-quality patents that can withstand scrutiny and support innovation.
The hearing was largely cordial, with Squires fielding questions on patent eligibility, PTAB reforms, and the USPTO’s backlog. He positioned himself as a defender of national security and a proponent of free-market solutions, drawing on his experience in using patents to combat terrorist financing post-9/11.
On the topic of Section 101 patent eligibility, Squires didn’t mince words. He pointed out that China’s patent system offers more expansive subject matter eligibility than the U.S., particularly in emerging technologies (he could have added Europe to the list). He argued that this disparity is costing the U.S. in terms of competitiveness and innovation. Squires expressed strong support for the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA), stating that the current U.S. framework creates significant uncertainty and hampers innovation.
Regarding the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), Squires acknowledged the need for reform. He supported the Promoting and Respecting Economically Vital American Innovation Leadership (PREVAIL) Act, which aims to address issues within the PTAB process. Squires emphasized that while post-grant reviews are essential for weeding out bad patents, the process must be fair and not overly burdensome for patent holders.
As for the confirmation process, the Senate Judiciary Committee has held the hearing, and the nomination has been placed on the Senate Executive Calendar. The next steps involve a committee vote, followed by a full Senate vote. Given the current political climate, the timeline for confirmation remains uncertain.
Within the IP community, reactions to Squires’ nomination have been mixed. Some appreciate his emphasis on patent quality and his experience in both the public and private sectors. Others are cautious, awaiting more concrete policy positions, especially regarding PTAB reforms and patent eligibility standards. As always, the proof will be in the pudding—or in this case, the patents.
Stay tuned for further developments as the confirmation process unfolds.
SEP-aration Anxiety
I rarely talk about Standard Essential Patents (SEP) for two reasons; it is the realm of a few large patent owners who aggregate (either internally or via patent pools) hundreds if not thousands of patents that by magic will read on newly developed standard. Then they license those to implementers and the big guys get into a fight each and every time. It is essentially a Goliath vs. Goliath game.
Nonetheless, this is a very important topic that has worldwide geopolitical ramifications and each country or region has been trying to play its own cards. Indeed, over the past year, both sides of the Atlantic have offered enough SEP-related drama to warrant a Netflix series—think House of Cards, but with more footnotes.
Let’s start with the U.S., where the official SEP strategy appears to be: “If it ain’t broke, let the courts figure it out.” The USPTO, along with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the DOJ, continues to support a light-touch, voluntary approach. You know—like herding cats, but politely. They’ve doubled down on education, international coordination, and “market-led” frameworks, which is Washington-speak for “we hope private parties will behave.” Spoiler: they rarely do.
Meanwhile, U.S. courts have had their hands full refereeing global SEP disputes, especially around anti-suit injunctions—a fancy way of saying, “Stop suing me in Germany while I’m suing you in California.” Decisions like Optis v. Apple and Ericsson v. Samsung have made clear that while global FRAND rates are fashionable, jurisdictional brawls are even more so.
Now hop across the pond, where the European Commission tried something bold: actual regulation. Their 2023 draft SEP regulation proposed a registry, essentiality checks, FRAND rate setting, and a centralized dispute resolution mechanism housed at the EUIPO—basically, trying to corral SEP licensing into a tidy bureaucratic spreadsheet.
The response from stakeholders? Let’s just say it ranged from “mild panic” to “you must be joking.” Major SEP holders weren’t keen on a system that might cap their royalties, while implementers worried that even the Commission’s best intentions might result in an even messier mess. Add a good dose of inter-member state squabbling and voilà—by February 2025, the proposal was quietly shelved. Or, as Brussels would say, strategically re-evaluated.
So where does that leave us? The U.S. sticks with its laissez-faire litigation-heavy model; the EU has (for now) retreated from its regulatory ambitions. Both claim to support balance and transparency, which is lovely—until someone files suit.
The truth is, SEPs are like quantum particles: their value depends entirely on how you observe them. From a licensor’s angle, they’re the lifeblood of innovation. From a licensee’s view, they’re a tollbooth on the road to progress. From a policymaker’s perch? Well, let’s just say it’s hard to please everyone when the standard is moving and the patent is essential.
Until next time—keep your claims broad, your licensing FRANDly, and your regulators confused.
The Rise and Rise of Intangibles
Once upon a time (say, in the 1970s), 80% of a company’s market value was tied to physical stuff—plants, inventory, real estate. Fast forward to today, and over 90% of the S&P 500’s value now resides in intangible assets.
From software code to brand equity, user data to patented algorithms, the “invisible stuff” is now the main stuff. Companies don’t buy factories—they buy future potential, wrapped in IP, proprietary know-how, and team résumés.
Exhibit A: Recent Intangible-Heavy Acquisitions
- Google’s $3.2B acquisition of Nest (2014)
What did Google really buy? Not thermostats, but Nest’s software IP, user base, and brand.
Source: CNBC – Nest acquisition analysis - Facebook’s $19B acquisition of WhatsApp (2014)
No revenue model. Minimal hardware. The value? User growth and encryption know-how.
Source: Forbes - Microsoft’s $26.2B purchase of LinkedIn (2016)
Tangibles? Hardly. It was all about data, algorithms, and brand.
Source: The Verge - Salesforce’s $15.7B acquisition of Tableau (2019)
IP and software talent accounted for the lion’s share.
Source: TechCrunch - Arm Holdings’ $40B attempted sale to NVIDIA (2020, blocked)
Valuation was based almost entirely on patent assets and design IP.
Source: Bloomberg
These deals demonstrate what we at Tangible IP have long advocated: Ideas matter—but protected ideas matter more.
What separates a napkin sketch from a billion-dollar exit? The answer is and remains, enforceability. Studies repeatedly show that companies with strong IP portfolios:
- Are more likely to receive funding
- Are valued at higher revenue multiples
- Are less likely to go bankrupt
- Create more and better-paying jobs
And let’s not forget: IP can be monetized, licensed, collateralized, and litigated—making it the Swiss Army knife of business assets, minus the corkscrew.
The Bottom Line: OpenAI’s multi-billion dollar bet on a concept-stage hardware firm may seem extravagant, but in the broader context of today’s economy, it’s just another Tuesday in the boardroom. If your company’s value is mostly intangible, you’d better make it defensible—or risk watching it walk out the door each evening. So, by all means, keep hiring geniuses. Just be sure their output ends up in the IP column, not just the cloud.