Analysis of IP Valuation on Technology Food Processing as Strategy Business in New Product Development

Syukri Yusuf Nasution, Yovita Isnasari


Valuation IP of IDS000001555 analysed the economic impact and to measure the financial benefits of the asset if implemented in a business. This patent is about technology that used to produce of Mangosteen peel nano-tea. This technology is to product nano particle with ball-mill method. This research used qualitative and quantitative methods with description analysis. By using the qualitative method, this research focused on scoring of the IP in a several aspects, while the quantitative method conducted by income approach used the Discounted Cash Flow method. The qualitative method showed the technology  IDS000001555 had a high opportunity and low risk value. This patent also has the best marketing strategy by a licensing agreement. However, the quantitative method showed the technology IDS000001555 had 6.1% for royalty rate with value of NPV (Net Present Value) Rp 605,227,434. It was estimated that this patent will generate the turnover of about Rp 617,000,000 for 10 years of useful economic life.

Keywords: valuation IP, economic impact, qualitative and quantitative methods, royalty rate, turnover

Full Text:



Bose, S. (2004). Thesis: A Valuation Process for Intellectual Property in a Technology Park. Victoria University.

Creswell, J. W. (2003). RESEARCH DESIGN Qualitative, Quantitative. and Mixed Methods Approaches SECOND EDITION. Sage Publications.

Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. United States Plywood Corp, Civ. A. No. 99-195. (United States District Court, S. D. May 28, 1970).

Gurbiel, R. (2002). Impact of Innovation and Technology Transfer on Economic Growth: The Central and Eastern Europe Experience. Warsaw School of Economic.

Hall, B. Z. (2001). The patent paradox revisited: an empirical study of patenting in the U.S. semiconductor industry 1979–1995. Rand Journal of Economics 32 (1), 101-128.

Hurmerinta-Peltomaki, L., & Nummela, N. (2006). Mixed methods in international business research: A value-added perspective. Management International Review, 46, 439-459.

IPScore. (2010). Retrieved from [online], Available:

Kortum, S. L. (1999). What is behind the recent surge in patenting? Research Policy 28. 1-22.

Noel, M. S. (2006). Strategic patenting and software innovation. CEPR Discussion Paper 5701.

O’Cathain, A., Murphy, E., & Nicholl, J. (2010). Three techniques for integrating data in mixed methods studies. British Medical Journal, 314, 1147-1150.

Parr, R. L. G. S. (1994). Quantitative Methods of Valuing Intellectual Property, in: M. Simensky, L.G. Bryer (Eds.), The New Role of Intellectual Property in Commercial Transactions. New York: Wiley.

Somaya, D. (2003). Strategic determinants of decisions not to settle patent litigation. Strategic Management Journal 24, 17-38.

Spasic, O. (2011). WIPO Workshop on Innovation, Intellectual Asset Management and Successful Technology Licensing: Wealth Creation in the Arab Region. Valuation IP Workshop Material , Oman.

Susan Chaplinsky, P. G. (2002). Methods of Intellectual Property Valuation. Charlottesville, VA:. University of Virginia Darden School Foundation.

Turner, J. (2000). Valuation of Intelectual Property Assets; Valuation Techniques: Paramaters, Methodologies and Limitations. . Taejon, Republic of Korea.

WIPO. (2016). WIPO Publication,What is Intellectual Property? Retrieved from [online] Available:

Wurzer, A. (2010). Workshop Material “Intellectual Property Valuation and Technology Transfer". Jakarta.



  • There are currently no refbacks.

Copyright (c) 2020 STI Policy and Management Journal

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Copyright of Journal of STI (Science Technology Innovation) Policy and Management Journal (e-ISSN 2502-5996 p-ISSN 1907-9753). Powered by OJS.