Stephen D. Podd - Page 28

                                       - 28 -                                         
          the license agreements regarding the Sea Bulk patents, and,                 
          therefore, a "much higher royalty" was justified.                           
               Under the second approach, the parties to the license agreement        
          would determine a royalty rate by determining a reasonable division         
          of profits anticipated through exploitation of the licensed                 
          technology.  Mr. Parker noted that, because a licensee typically            
          assumes greater financial risk in commercializing technology, a             
          conservative rule of thumb in royalty negotiations allocates 25             
          percent of the anticipated profits to the licensor.  Mr. Parker             
          noted, however, that such percentage can be negotiated upward or            
          downward, and, because Mr. Podd brought a "strong arsenal of assets"        
          to the licensing negotiations, he could demand a royalty rate which         
          would entitle him to 50 to 75 percent of the anticipated profits.           
          Mr. Parker used such an allocation of profits to determine that Mr.         
          Podd was entitled to royalties in the range of 15.3 to 23.0 percent         
          and that a royalty rate in the range of 12.5 to 15 percent is               
          "definitely reasonable."  In using the allocation of profits to             
          determine a reasonable royalty rate, however, Mr. Parker used               
          actual, rather than projected, sales data in his calculations.              
                         iii.  George M. Thomas                                       
               Mr. Thomas received his B.S. in mechanical engineering from the        
          University of South Carolina in 1957 and his L.L.B. from the                
          American University Law School in 1964.  From 1960 to 1964, he              
          worked as a patent examiner in the United States Patent Office in           
          Washington, D.C.  Since 1964, he has been continuously engaged in           




Page:  Previous  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  36  37  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011