Making Licensing Tangible – What Makes Technology Licensable?

Not every technology can, or should, be licensed. But when licensing is on the table, one key question always comes up: Is this technology actually licensable? 

In this article I go through what traits can make technology licensable in the first place. It’s not just about how good your invention is. It’s about how complete, protected, usable, and relevant it is—for someone else. 

1. Readiness, Usability and Value 

Licensable technology typically needs to meet three criteria: 

• Technology readiness: It must be ready to use, further develop, or build upon. What “ready” means depends on the industry and application. Sometimes a working prototype is enough for licensing; other times, it must be near plug-and-play. 

• Usability: Technology should exist in a format that others can make use of. Ideas on a whiteboard aren’t licensable. Usable formats include specifications, testing methods, software, configuration files, prototypes, manuals, databases and even training materials. Usable format can also be a patent, which includes description of a solution to technical problem. 

• Value to the licensee: The technology must enable better, cheaper, faster, or more competitive solutions for the licensee. If it doesn’t solve a real problem or create a measurable advantage, it won’t be worth paying for. 

Even when all the technical criteria are met, licensees still need a reason to adopt. Strong technologies become licensable, for example, when they help shorten time-to-market, reduce internal development risks, enable premium pricing, or unlock new use cases. This kind of value proposition makes your technology often stronger than specifications alone. 

2. IP Protection: The Foundation of Licensing 

Without IP protection, licensing has little legal backbone. Why pay if the same thing can be copied, developed or used for free? 

Different IP rights protect different things: 

• Patents protect inventions: technical solutions to technical problems. 

• Copyright protects original creative expressions, like code or documentation. 

• Trade secrets protect confidential know-how or business-critical information. 

These forms of protection work best together, especially in technology licensing. A patent tells the world what the core idea is, but it also makes it public. A trade secret keeps the specifics confidential but offers no protection if someone else independently develops the same solution. 

That’s why licensing of technology works best when supported by a patent portfolio, with trade secrets and other technology assets licensed alongside. Even trademarks and branding elements may be part of the package if they create commercial value. 

Bundling matters. A strong licensing package might include a mix of patents, software libraries, data sets, configuration parameters, testing tools, trade secrets, and know-how. The more complete and usable the bundle, the easier it is for the licensee to adopt, and the more tangible the value becomes. 

Also: having a patent makes licensing your non-core technology easier. It provides a concrete, legal right that a licensee can evaluate. In contrast, trying to license unprotected software, tools, or internal know-how, especially if it’s no longer in use, can be a much harder sell. 

3. Documentation and Transferability 

Even well-protected and mature technology can fail in licensing if it’s poorly documented. Licensing requires clear instructions, usability materials, and sometimes even training. Without these, transferring the technology is difficult and the risk for the licensee becomes too high. 

It’s not just about how the technology works. It’s also about how the rights and obligations like confidentiality, use limitations, support expectations are structured. These should be thoroughly considered early in the process. 

One essential element is ensuring the technology is free of third-party dependencies or rights issues. If the solution contains open-source code, licensed data, or background technology components from others, the licensor must have the right to sublicense, or the licensee may walk away. Freedom-to-operate isn’t just a problem for product developers; it’s just as relevant to licensors. 

4. Technical Strength ≠ Market Fit 

A technology can be brilliant and still not licensable. 

Markets evolve. Competing technologies emerge. Sometimes a technically stronger solution loses out to one with better branding, more partners, or wider ecosystem support. In some industries, one winner dominates. In others, multiple solutions can coexist. 

Licensing only works if there’s a market need and if your technology is a good fit for it. 

5. Why Licensing Fails 

Even if the technology to be licensed would be the most advanced and technically brilliant solution, patented and all that, it might not ever become a licensing success. Licensing is a complex business, and there are many non-technical factors that have a high impact on the outcome.   The most common reasons a licensable technology never gets licensed: 

• No market need, or the technology doesn't fit the need. 

• Poor execution, particularly in go-to-market and licensing process. 

• Lack of financing or patience, especially in early-stage ventures. 

• Confusing business model, for instance, offering licensing when the market expects to buy components or services. 

Markets often need time to adapt to a licensing model. Changing how customers think takes long-term effort. Licensing is typically a business with a long sale cycle, and time-to-money may be longer than expected. It is a business for patient people. 

6. What to Do with Non-Core Technology 

Non-core technologies that are not in active use in the current business or company may hide unused business value. However, not all unused technology should be licensed. The key is to understand whether there’s a market for it.  

• Are similar technologies being used in the field? 

• Are potential licensees using your patent or approach? 

• If it’s not in use, why not? Is it due to lack of awareness, lack of need, or maybe lack of internal development by others? 

Technology and market landscaping help answer these questions. Without clear market interest, even good technology may not justify a licensing push. 

Sometimes licensing is not just about maximizing value, it’s about saving it. For technologies that no longer align with a company’s strategy, licensing can become a bridge to exit, signaling value and creating revenue ahead of a divestment or wind-down. Even a modest licensing deal can improve the asset value of an IP portfolio before a sale of the portfolio or a business line. Finding licensees or buyers for portfolios you don’t need is not an easy task. How to create value with your non-core portfolios is a topic I will be returning in a separate article. 

7. Business Model Matters, but Doesn’t Dictate 

If your company already licenses technology, it’s easier to assess new opportunities. 

If not, the business model doesn’t automatically rule licensing out, but it should be examined. For instance, if your current product includes IP you want to license separately, you’ll need to manage overlaps. If licensing would require enforcing patents against existing customers, that could backfire. 

Compatibility with your core business must be considered before you go to market. 

8. Build with Licensing in Mind, Even If It’s a Backup 

For product- and service-based companies, licensing may never become the primary model. But it should still be a strategic option. 

Smart IP teams build portfolios that protect current offerings and support licensing in case the business context changes. If no such foresight exists, the portfolio might lack the value structure required for licensing, even if the business one day needs it. 

Design Your Business with Future in Mind 

A licensable technology isn’t just technically sound. It’s ready, usable, valuable, documented and protected. 

Whether licensing is your core business or a future option, designing your technology and IP strategy with licensing in mind is what makes it tangible and ultimately, viable. 

What a Global Telco Learned About SEP Value – And What You Can Too

This article was originally published as a blog in Evalueserve website on September 2025 : What a Global Telco Learned About SEP Value 

---

Introduction: The Hidden Value in Your Patent Portfolio 

Intellectual property is a critical lever for competitive advantage and long-term value creation. Yet, even enterprises with substantial R&D legacies frequently fail to extract the full economic potential of their portfolios. Standard Essential Patents illustrate this challenge. These assets, fundamental to industry standards, may remain underexploited, their licensing value hidden by complexity and inattention. 

This blog examines the case of a global telecommunications leader that systematically activated dormant SEP assets. By applying a rigorous methodology and leveraging specialist expertise, the company identified significant licensing opportunities potentially worth millions, achieved without litigation or costly organisational expansion. Their experience provides a replicable framework for organisations seeking to optimise and monetise SEP holdings. 

Phase 1: Recognising the Opportunity 

The company in question had an extensive, technically diverse patent portfolio. Some of these patents were likely essential to widely adopted industry standards. However, the team lacked the internal expertise to assess or act on this potential. Their last engagement with patent pools had been years earlier, and institutional knowledge had faded. 

This approach is a fairly common scenario. Many companies invest in innovation but don't revisit their IP strategy as the market evolves. In this case, the trigger came from within: a renewed interest in understanding whether the portfolio could deliver more than just defensive value. 

With the decision to explore monetisation made, the first step was to understand both the internal assets and the external landscape. 

Phase 2: Mapping the Portfolio and the Market

The team began with a dual-track approach: 

1. Portfolio categorisation: They classified patents by technology domain and assessed potential relevance to existing standards. 

1. Patent pool landscaping: They identified active pools, their licensing programs, and the standards they covered. 

This exercise revealed more than expected. Even seasoned IP professionals discovered new pools and licensing programs they hadn’t previously encountered. The SEP ecosystem had evolved—and so had the opportunities. 

With this foundational understanding in place, the next step was to align internal strengths with external demand. 

Phase 3: Strategic Alignment and Prioritisation

Not every patent is worth monetising. The team focused on aligning the strongest technologies with the relevant standards and the most active and relevant patent pools. They filtered out low-value areas and prioritised segments with high licensing potential. 

This phase was about focus. By narrowing the scope, the team avoided wasting resources on marginal assets and concentrated on areas where the return on effort would be highest. 

But identifying potential is only half the battle. To license effectively, you need to prove essentiality. 

Phase 4: Deep Dive into Essentiality 

The team conducted a deep-dive analysis to determine which patents were truly essential to the standards in question. This involved: 

1. Essentiality assessments 

1. Claim charting (mapping patent claims to standard specifications) 

1. Legal and jurisdictional reviews 

Claim charting was especially critical. It transformed assumptions into evidence, providing the company with a credible foundation for licensing discussions. It also helped them understand which patents could be leveraged immediately—and which might require further development or support. 

With validated assets in hand, the company was ready to engage with the market. 

Phase 5: Engaging Patent Pools 

Armed with claim charts and strategic insights, the company was ready to approach selected patent pools. These engagements move past administration and function as strategic negotiations. Next steps were to evaluate: 

1. Submission requirements 

1. Licensing terms 

1. Revenue distribution models 

Expert support was essential here. It helped the company avoid common pitfalls, such as overlapping pool coverage or unclear royalty structures. The goal wasn’t just to join a pool—it was to join the right pool, under the right terms. 

Once agreements are signed, the focus can shift from setup to sustainability. 

Phase 6: Relationship and Revenue Management 

With licensing agreements in place, the ongoing monetisation needs managing: 

1. Royalty reporting and revenue forecasting 

1. Ongoing communication with pool administrators 

1. Feedback loops for future pool participation 

These steps turn from a one-time project into a managed revenue stream. The company also gains visibility into emerging standards and new licensing opportunities, positioning them for long-term success. 

The financial results appear impressive and convincing, while the strategic benefits extend much further. 

The Impact: Revenue, Clarity, and Optionality 

The project delivered measurable results: 

1. Millions in licensing potential enabled 

1. Strategic clarity on the value and positioning of the portfolio 

1. Operational efficiency through a repeatable, scalable process 

1. Optionality for future monetisation, including direct licensing or asset divestment 

But beyond the numbers, the company gained something even more valuable: confidence. They now understood their IP landscape, their market position, and their monetisation options. 

And perhaps most importantly, they developed a new mindset around IP. 

Beyond Revenue: A Shift in Organisational Thinking 

This project generated future income and reshaped the company’s perspective on its IP. The legal team became a strategic partner. The business leadership saw IP not as a cost centre, but as a growth lever. And the organisation as a whole became more proactive in identifying and acting on monetisation opportunities. 

Claim charting, for example, became a tool not only for licensing but also for internal valuation and strategic planning. The company also began exploring bilateral licensing and potential partnerships based on its newly validated assets. 

So what can other companies learn from this journey? 

Final Thoughts: Awareness Is the First Step to Impact 

This case proves that SEP monetisation doesn't require a massive internal team or a high-risk litigation strategy. What it does require is awareness, structure, and the right partners, empowering you to unlock the full potential of your IP. 

If your company has invested in R&D, chances are you're sitting on valuable IP. The question is: are you doing anything with it? 

With the correct methodology, even a dormant portfolio can become a strategic asset. And as this global telco learned, the return on that investment can be measured not just in revenue, but also in resilience, relevance, and long-term value, paving the way for future growth and innovation. 

When to License Technology or Patents – Strike When Your IP Is Hot

Some companies build their entire business on licensing. But most don’t.

Instead, most companies invest in developing technology and IP to power and back up their own products and services. Then licensing, specifically out-licensing, enters the picture only when something changes: the strategy, the product roadmap, or simply the realization that some assets aren't being used to their full potential. IP team is always tasked with IP protection and portfolio development, and this is where they will focus on. Monetisation may not be the core focus or the skill set of the IP team. When a company has more urgent priorities and licensing revenue isn’t yet embedded in strategy or linked to a concrete action plan, it’s the kind of task that gets postponed indefinitely.

And of course, if you hire people to protect IP, that’s exactly what they’ll focus on, protection, not monetisation. It’s understandable: when a company has more urgent priorities and licensing revenue isn’t yet embedded in strategy or linked to a concrete action plan, it’s the kind of task that gets postponed indefinitely.

This article isn’t about in-licensing (a universe of its own). It’s about the moment when a company should ask: Should we be licensing this out?

The Scenario: Assets with No Home

One of the most common triggers is that something of value was developed, but is no longer used internally. Think of technologies tied to discontinued products, or tools developed for internal use that others might find useful. These assets just sit there, protected by IP, costing money to maintain, yet creating no value.

That's your signal. But it’s not the only one.

In turbulent times, companies increasingly ask how to generate new revenue and make better use of their R&D investments. A structured look at your IP portfolio and technology landscape; what you have, who else is using similar technologies and where adoption is heading, can surface real opportunities to create licensing income.

Sometimes licensing is sparked by outside interest. Another company wants to use your technology. But more often, licensing is driven internally by the realization that there’s untapped value in the portfolio.

Why License?

At its core, out-licensing is about revenue or relationships.

• Revenue provides both reward and reinvestment for innovation.

• Partnerships and ecosystems can grow usage, reinforce your competitive position, or enable joint IP monetization.

In some cases, collaboration with other IP holders can strengthen the collective position and bring more returns for everyone involved.

Timing Is Everything

Too early and there’s nothing to license. The technology isn’t proven or complete enough to be valuable. Nobody is using it yet. The pitch to licensees isn’t compelling.

Too late and the value is gone. In patent licensing, expiry plus the tail for past damages defines your deadline. In technology licensing, the value may last longer—if you’re continuously developing the technology and bundling trade secrets, know-how, or other non-expiring assets.

The sweet spot is when the technology is usable, protected and aligned with current or emerging market needs.

Common Missteps

• Underestimating value: Companies often think licensing is too hard, too costly, or not worth it. Sometimes it isn’t, but a strategic review will give a real answer.

• Overestimating value: Creators of the technology may believe it’s uniquely brilliant. The market may disagree. Landscape analysis helps avoid heartbreak (and wasted effort).

Does This Work in My Industry?

Most likely, yes. Licensing happens in every sector. But it’s especially visible in industries built on shared standards and interoperability, like connectivity, automotive, IoT, streaming and consumer electronics.

Is a Patent Needed?

That depends. Many software or technology licenses work without patents, relying instead on know-how, trade secrets, or code.

But patent licensing is often simpler. It can be based on a clearly defined legal right: a specific patent or set of patents. Unlike in technology licensing, there’s no need to negotiate issues like ownership of improvements, development responsibilities, or transfer of know-how.

What’s more, having patent protection makes it easier to find a licensee, especially for non-core assets. If you're offering a patent license, it's easier for the licensee to evaluate, adopt and justify the deal with patent involved. In contrast, licensing unprotected software, trade secrets, or know-how, especially if they're non-core, often raises questions of risk, enforceability and competitive advantage.

What Makes Something Licensable?

Simply put, a technology is licensable when:

• It has value,

• It’s defined and transferable,

• It’s usable by others,

• And it’s protected, legally and/or practically.

Why would anyone pay for something that not valuable or usable, or which they can use for free?

What Kind of Culture Supports Licensing?

Licensing requires risk tolerance and long-term vision. Revenue doesn’t appear overnight. In some cases, licensing includes enforcement and not every company is ready for that. But whether you enforce or not, you signal to the market what kind of IP owner you are. That perception matters.

Licensing vs. Selling

Licensing can be slower, but you retain ownership and upside. Selling is quicker, but the price reflects the buyer’s risk and discounts future value. One isn’t better than the other. The best path depends on your strategy, your timeline and your capabilities.

Where to start?

If you’re reading this and wondering whether your company has something licensable, it probably does. Licensing starts with awareness. It doesn’t require a perfectly packaged opportunity, just a willingness to review what’s already there. That review doesn’t need to be complex or expensive, but it does need to happen. Whether you talk to a trusted advisor, an experienced licensing partner, or even someone in your own network who’s seen this before, make the conversation happen. Good licensing strategies don’t start with forms. They start with people asking the right questions.

Dare to Look Around and See the Opportunities

Licensing is a way to make your IP work harder. It’s not always the right path, but it’s always worth asking the question: Do we have something of value that others would pay for?

That’s when licensing becomes tangible.