智權報總覽 > 產業與經濟           
 
有效的專利權可能增加的好處
郭史蒂夫/北美智權 教育訓練處 歐洲專利律師
中文翻譯:黃少瑜/北美智權 教育訓練處 設計專利工程師暨研究員
張宇凱 審稿/北美智權 教育訓練處 專利工程研究員

近幾年中,人們似乎對無形資產越來越感興趣,特別是智慧財產以及其中之專利權。這是因為許多企業已經意識到,如果對這些無形資產進行明智的評估及運用,就可以使得企業獲得額外的收入。

一般典型所感興趣的部分是在於專利價值及專利組合之評估。這些資產價值的評估一直是一門藝術而不僅只是科學,如同柯達公司在2012-13年的破產事件所彰顯者,將其視為一個獨立的資產來評估其之價值,會是很困難的一件事。在柯達仍然是一個很活躍的公司時,其之專利組合具有估計超過20億美元的價值。雖然在考量給付摩托羅拉移動及AOL的專利組合之金額下,這樣的價值並不算太突出。然而,當柯達在不久之後申請破產時,其專利組合之價值就僅只剩下不到當初所預估的十分之一。有些評論員便嚴厲指責美國銀行高估了這些專利組合之價值,但是事實上這些估價結果至少部分上或許是正確的。因為其等之價值在柯達公司營運良好時,而不是在柯達公司開始被清算人進行資產清算,以取回一些金錢之時(在這段期間技術或許也將會被移轉),往往會是比較高的。因此,專利組合的價值必須在一段非常特定之時間區段內進行評估認定,並且往往會與其之運用目的有關。

在上述之柯達的案例中,也說明了專利權的評估並不是一件像是僅評估銀行及會計師帳目內的數字之一般資產價值一樣的簡單工作,而實際上應該要尋求專利專業人員來進行更進一步的評估。

另一項會造成人們對於專利權的興趣日漸增長之原因,在於其可以做為一間公司在某些國家中之避稅手段上的價值。在過去幾年中,至少有12個國家對於與特別是專利之智慧財產權相關的組合,已經導入了租稅減免制度(租稅優惠政策,patent box)。這些制度的目的主要是為了鼓勵企業去展開研究並產出一些創新發明,然後可以在該國家中進一步藉由IP權來保護企業利益,進而藉此為國家整體增進一些利益。然而,有些公司被指控將智慧財產權(甚至是專利權),視為低稅賦地區/國家中之可以產生收益的資產,以迴避在產生最初獲益時之其他地區/國家中,所需支付之較高額度的公司稅,藉以作為主動避稅的手段。這種避稅方式是否可以在程度上可以被歸類為是「主動」避稅,仍然會與專利的價值以及稅則制度的規定方式,有著相當程度的關聯性。

經濟合作暨發展組織(OECD,Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development)與20國集團(G20),最近公布了一份能夠有效地打擊損害稅收之行為的詳細報告,而其中之部分細節便與智慧財產權減免稅務制度有關。其之結論是,諸如專利權這般可以刺激研發的租稅減免制度,就整體而言是有利的租稅計劃,然而例如商標之其他與行銷有關的智慧財產權資產,則不應該享有租稅優惠。該份報告主要的建議內容是,國家或益與智慧財產權之間必須要有清楚而明確的關聯。儘管這在未來也許會導致複雜的計算,但是作者仍特別指出,參與的企業仍然可能會為了要拓展來自於選擇性租稅優惠並獲益之機會,而選擇此一方案。該份報告之目的主要是為了要調和在不同的司法管轄區域或國家之間的稅收制度,而這種調和過程也可能會降低整體之複雜性。

根據這份報告的結果,檢視公司是否會針對專利以及其之價值評估,而不是僅僅著眼於避稅之目的來投入更多心力,將會是一件有趣的事情。符合在這份報告中所述之與專利價值有關的趨勢變化之一項範例,就是以往對於租稅優惠政策相當嚴苛(特別是相較於英國的租稅優惠政策)的德國,現在則已經顯示正在考慮在德國引進類似的租稅優惠政策

 

 
作者: 郭史蒂夫 歐洲專利律師
現任: 北美智權教育訓練處 /歐洲專利律師
經歷: Bryers事務所 歐洲專利律師
Bugnion SpA事務所 歐洲專利學習律師
Notabartolo & Gervasi事務所 歐洲專利學習律師 歐洲專利局 實習生
英國牛津大學生物化學、細胞與分子生物系,生化碩士
英國倫敦大學瑪莉皇后學院,智財管理碩士

 


Possible added benefits of valid patent rights
Stefano John NAIP Education & Training Group / European Patent Attorney

There has been a growing interest from the field of accountancy over the last few years in intangible assets, especially IP and especially patent rights. This is because businesses have become aware that these intangible assets can be used to recover extra income for the business if used and assessed wisely.

The classic reason for any interest was in evaluating the worth of patents and patent portfolios. Evaluating the value of such assets has always been more an art than a science and, as the events involving the bankruptcy of Kodak in 2012-13 have shown, evaluating their value is even more difficult as a standalone asset. When Kodak was still an active corporation, its patent portfolio had been estimated to be over 2 billion USD. This is not too extraordinary if one considers how much was paid for Motorola Mobility’s and AOL’s IP portfolio. Yet when Kodak filed for bankruptcy a relatively short period afterwards, its entire portfolio went for less than a tenth of the estimated total. Some commentators have blamed this on an over-estimation by US banks keen on obtaining a high price for the portfolio, but the truth may be, at least partly, more prosaic. The value was much higher when Kodak was going concern; not when it was in the hands of liquidators who had to disburse its assets after liquidation to recover at least some money back (and maybe the technology had moved on in the time in between). Hence valuing patent portfolios has to always be done within a very specific window of time and relative to how it will be used.

The example of Kodak also shows that evaluating patent rights is not a simple job of evaluating the worth of an asset as just an asset that can be left to only banks and their accountants, but that it should require in depth evaluation by patent professionals.

A further reason for the growing interest in patent rights is their worth as means of reducing the tax liability for a company in a certain country. In the last couple of years, at least 12 countries have introduced tax exemption regimes (patent box) on profits that can be associated with IP rights, especially patents. The purpose of doing this was to incentivize businesses to carry out research and produce innovations which could then be protected by IP rights by businesses in that specific country with the added benefits that that practice could bring to the country as a whole. However, some companies have been accused of practising aggressive tax-avoidance by using IP rights, even patents, as income-producing assets held in low-tax areas/countries to avoid paying higher corporation tax for the same company in other areas/countries where the starting income is made. The extent to which the tax avoidance can be characterized as “aggressive” remains strictly connected to the worth of the patent and the manner in which the tax laws are drafted.

The OECD, in conjunction with the G20 group of major economies, has now recently published a detailed report on countering harmful tax practices more effectively and some of it details rules regarding tax exemption regimes for IP. Its conclusions are that tax regimes which incentivize research, such as patent rights, are, on the whole, beneficial schemes; while other marketing-related IP assets, such as trademarks, should not qualify for the tax benefits. The report's main recommendation is that there needs to be a clear link between the revenues and the IP right. While this will probably complicate such calculations in the future, the authors noted that the companies involved may still choose this in order to exploit the opportunity to benefit from an optional tax benefit. The report’s purpose is to harmonise such tax regimes among different jurisdictions and countries, and such harmonization may also lead to an overall reduction in complexity.

As a result of this report, it might be interesting to see if companies will invest more in patents and in assessing their value more with an eye on avoiding tax. One example of this changing trend regarding the worth of patents following this report is that Germany, which was critical of such tax regimes previously (especially UK’s patent-box), has now indicated it is considering introducing a similar patent box regime in Germany.

 

 
Author: Stefano John, European Patent Attorney
Experiences: European Patent Attorney, Bryers
Trainee European Patent Attorney, Bugnion SpA
Trainee European Patent Attorney, Notabartolo & Gervasi
Internship, EPO

 


Facebook 按讚馬上加入北美智權報粉絲團