Enriching Life Through Innovative Ideas SM



The classic 25% Rule is one of several methods of intellectual property valuation for the purpose of calculating a royalty in a patent licensing agreement. The classic 25% Rule is comprised of 4 different components that are calibrated upwards or downwards to ensure an equal division amongst the parties. 

Basic Approaches to Technology Valuation

According to A New Method to Value Intellectual Property by Ted Hagelin, there are several approaches to the valuation of royalties in technology licensing agreements, specifically, 1) the cost approach, 2) the market approach, and 3) the income approach.

The cost approach measures the value of the intellectual property asset by examining the cost to replace the asset with an identical or equivalent asset. The market approach, on the other hand, values the asset based upon comparable transactions between unrelated parties. The income approach values assets based upon the present value of the net economic benefit expected to be to be received over the life of the asset. The 25% Rule is an income-based approach widely discussed and used for the purpose of apportioning a technology’s value between the licensor and licensee to achieve a fair royalty rate as between the parties.

The Classic 25% Rule

The classic 25% Rule is based on 4 individual components: 1) the 25% Rule of Thumb, 2) the Georgia-Pacific Factor 13, 3) the next best alternative axiom, and 4) Fromson’s Book of Wisdom.”

The 25% Rule of Thumb

The 25% Rule of Thumb is an empirically suggested baseline that allocates a 25:75 ratio between the licensor and licensee, respectively in accordance with the allocation of risk.

The parties estimate the licensee’s expected profits for the intellectual property asset at issue for a given period of time. Then, the profits are divided by the expected net sales over the same period of time to achieve a profit rate. Then, the profit rate is multiplied by 25% to arrive at a running royalty rate. The Licensor’s royalty payment is calculated by apply the running royalty rate to the net sales.

Georgia Pacific Factor 13

The 25% Rule focuses on the language of Georgia-Pacific Factor 13, which instructs the trial court to consider “The portion of the realizable profit that should be credited to the invention as distinguished from non-patented elements, the manufacturing process, business risks, or significant features or improvements added by the infringer” to calibrate the baseline 25% Rule of Thumb.
Consequently, if a licensor possesses strong intellectual property assets, the licensor may be entitled to the 25% or more of the profit share. Correspondingly, a weaker set of assets would support a lower percentage of the profit share to dovetail the weaker strength of the bargaining party.

The Next Best Alternative Axiom

Thirdly, the 25% Rule examines the next available alternative to provide the licensee with a “good indication of the strength and practical value of the intellectual property to be licensed.”
These alternatives are, specifically, 1) use of the technology at the risk of a lawsuit; 2) independent development of the same or similar technology; 3) design of the licensee’s operation around licensor’s property rights; 4) licensing of comparable property rights from another source; or 5) avoidance of any use of technology within the purview of the licensor’s property rights.
Accordingly, if a licensee finds several viable alternatives at a relatively low cost, the value of the asset is consequently diminished, and the licensee may consider offering a lower royalty. On the other hand, if there are little to no viable alternatives, the licensee should be willing to pay a higher royalty to correspond to the relative strength of the asset in a given field.

Book of Wisdom

Finally, the 25% Rule is re-calibrated under the scrutiny of Judge Howard’s “Book of Wisdom.” The Book of Wisdom consists of a set of practical and logical questions that focus on the consequences of infringement in determining the valuation of the royalty rate between a licensor and licensee by evaluating the following:

  • Is the quality of the invention, as patented, such that it is technically very difficult or economically very expensive for a third party to design around, or otherwise avoid?
  • Are purchasers of the product or users of the process of which the patented invention forms a part, aware of the presence of the impact of the invention, and is this awareness crucial to the decision to purchase or use?
  • Is the impact of the invention such that it influences the sale of other components, assembled products and subassemblies, directly related to the invention, as well as other products such as the concepts of ‘the entire market value rule’ or ‘collateral’ or ‘convoyed sale’ should be taken into account?

The Book of Wisdom relays the importance of foresight that evaluates the cost of potential litigation as a determinant in risk allocation between the parties. The Book of Wisdom ultimately considers any potential real events of serious consideration that may unfold at the time of infringement. As seen above, the 25% rule would be re-calibrated to account for these risks.


Proponents of the 25% Rule suggest:

  • It is an industry norm
  • 75% of the work needed to develop and commercialize a product must be done by the licensee
  • The licensee, who markets the product, makes the rules
  • A 3:1 ratio is a common payback ratio
  • Technology is only the first of four required steps of commercializing a product
  • The ratio of research and development to profits is often within the range of 25-33%.


Detractors of the 25% Rule of Thumb suggests the 25% rule:

  • Fails to account for the unique relationship between the patent and the accused product
  • Fails to account for the unique relationship between the parties
  • The rule is essentially arbitrary and does not fit within the model of the hypothetical negotiation with which it is based.


The classic 25% Rule provides a historic template for licensing valuation of intellectual property assets. Its strength lies in its ability to produce business-like results, its flexibility, and its place as an industry standard. On the other hand, according to the Federal Circuit, the use of the 25%

Rule of Thumb, alone, is fatally flawed and barred from use in court as a method of calculating a reasonable royalty.

Though the 25% Rule is not the only method of asset valuation, the 25% Rule provides an industry-backed method of valuation when used as an initial method in the valuation of a particular intellectual property asset. 

FindLaw Network

What Our Clients Say

Starting a new business can be a bit scary. Aside from worries of failure, there’s also the hassle of making sure all legal paperwork are properly filed. I reached out to Mr. Wang (Tommy) because of his excellent reviews and reputation and I am so glad I did. He was thorough and meticulous in answering all of my concerns and took time to find out special laws and policies regarding the kind of business I am starting. I could focus on the daily practical side of starting my new office without worry because I felt Tommy was reliable and took my case seriously. My business is opened and it’s all been a smooth start because of Tommy’s help. I have plans to start another business venture in the next few years and I already know I’ll be coming back to Wang IP Law.

The Shindig W.

I came to Tommy for help reviewing a licensing agreement I had secured with a well-known manufacturer. Tommy made sure I understood all the details in the contract and he negotiated with the company to improve my side of the deal. I mentioned to Tommy at my first consultation that we were looking to expand throughout the US and were investing a lot of money to make a big entrance into the market. I did not think I would have my store open so soon but Tommy also has connections with the local area and realtors to help me secure the location for my first store in the Los Angeles area. Tommy works a lot with the local businesses and he understands how to transition from the Asian market to US market. Within 8 months my store was open for business and fully operating. I must recommend Tommy to any business owners looking for help with contracts and improving their side of the deal. Tommy has the knowledge and experience to make sure there is a smooth process to open for business here, and make sure that your company is set up for success.


I think Tommy and his team by far considered the best people to work with in my 16 business years. Beside quick responses to all my inquiries, they also done things right and providing very professional solutions. I’m highly recommending Tommy and his firm to all business owners.

Calvin C.

I have been working on my Utility Patent for almost 4 years. I have hired and fired two very reputable IP firms because with all their expertise and reputation for being some of the top firms in IP Law, I felt a lack of connection and care in my product, time and financial investment. Then I found Tommy and his team. Tommy does not waste time. He and his team are professional and extremely thorough. After 4 years, I finally found a legal team that I felt spent the time to really understand the components of my utility patent. Tommy also very mindful of cost and how and where my money would be better spent. I really feel I am in great hands with Tommy and his team. They have been patient with my revisions. And most importantly, they made me feel that they fully understood the importance this patent is to me. It has been a great and comforting pleasure working with Tommy.


Read All