Apple, Google and Fitbit touted to acquire Jawbone patents
A host of technology companies including Apple, Samsung, Google, LG and Fitbit have been identified as potential buyers of Jawbone’s US patents.
The wearable device company has reportedly entered liquidation proceedings, prompting patent research firm Envision IP to analyse the potential value of the portfolio, owned by Jawbone’s parent company AliphCom.
Envision’s research, which estimates the portfolio’s value at between $25 million and $40 million, shows that AliphCom owns 251 US patents, 126 of which cover designs. The remaining patents are split between hardware systems and devices (105), and software and business methods (20).
As the average remaining term of the portfolio is more than 11 years, there is “plenty of time” for a potential acquirer to monetise the portfolio, either through licensing, commercialisation, and/or litigation, Envision said.
“With respect to potential acquirers, the major wearable device and smartwatch manufacturers, Apple, Google, Samsung, LG, and of course Fitbit may be natural candidates.
“In addition, Swatch, Nokia (Withings), Sony, Nike and Xiaomi could also find some synergies between their devices and the Jawbone patent portfolio,” the firm suggested.
Jawbone had been embroiled in a handful of IP lawsuits with Fitbit, another wearable device company, and in October last year the US International Trade Commission ended a long-running dispute between the pair by terminating trade secrets claims brought by Jawbone.
Envision said it does not expect a non-practising entity to be interested in the portfolio, unless it believes that certain patents have significant litigation strength and value.
The portfolio seems relatively robust, comprising a significant number of patents directed to speaker technology, microphone and audio calibration, various fitness and activity tracking features, and physiological monitoring, the firm added.
Envision admitted that valuing the portfolio is difficult because there is no public financial information directly related to the patents, but it arrived at $25 million to $40 million based on historical commercial revenue.
It added: “It is important to note that the price that a non-practising entity may be willing to pay could be much lower, however, given that such an acquisition would be based on licensing and litigation potential, and not necessarily the commercial potential of the patents.”
Did you enjoy reading this story? Sign up to our free daily newsletters and get stories like this sent straight to your inbox
Today’s top stories
PETA argues it should be able to represent monkey in court
Walmart ordered to pay $1.6m fees in TM infringement case
US patent system in poor health: former Fed Circuit chief judge
