Valuing intellectual property (IP) accurately for funding or M&A purposes remains one of the most intricate challenges in the industry. IP is often the crown jewel of a tech company, but its true value is elusive, heavily influenced by market conditions, competitive positioning, and future potential—factors that are inherently difficult to quantify.
One of the key challenges lies in the intangibility of IP. Unlike physical assets, whose value can be appraised through established metrics, IP’s worth is often speculative, tied to future revenue streams it might generate.
This makes its valuation highly subjective, dependent on assumptions about market adoption, the pace of innovation, and the ability to defend and monetize the IP.
Moreover, the value of IP can fluctuate significantly based on the context—what might be a strategic asset for one company could be a mere auxiliary benefit for another. This variability complicates negotiations, as both buyer and seller may have different perceptions of the IP’s worth.
At TD Shepherd we have developed numerous custom models to establish a transactional value for IP portfolios. The complexity of these models tends to increase with the size of the IP portfolio. Clustering of IP as well as the age (and hence lifetime) are relevant factors, as are the relevance/foundational value of each IP. IP “reach” in combination with market and market growth have also found their place in these models.
Of course, models, including pricing models, are always an incomplete reflection of the actual value of an IP portfolio. Even though the accuracy of the models has steadily improved, the final cap on all models is inevitably given by a fudge factor: “what is the strategic value of the portfolio to the buyer”. This is where our expertise, market- and industry-knowledge weighs in: not just in the ability to create a credible and defendable model but also to establish a valid insight into the buyer’s motivation and valuation bracket of the IP portfolio.
Refined with AI assistance to bring you clearer insights!
Includes image by freepik
Many founders underestimate how different deep tech fundraising really is. Deep tech funding rounds don’t follow the same rules as software funding rounds. These rounds take more time, they are larger, and are validation-driven due to long-lasting R&D cycles and capital intensity. Imagine that each round answers the question, then what question would it be?
Early exits are named as such because the exit constitutes an interruption of the regular venture path. There are several paths to an early exit, some organized, some happen by coincidence. For startups, it is important to have a clear focus on the path forward and, based on the technology and product it is developing, to understand the startup’s value path.
TD Shepherd congratulates Keiron Printing Technologies on successful raising Series A round led by Invest-NL. Keiron Printing Technologies B.V. (Eindhoven) commercializes a laser-induced forward transfer (LIFT) platform for solder paste deposition in electronics assembly.