The patent numbers game: "my stack is bigger than your stack" arguments are so gone...
The importance of due diligence historically has been downplayed. For the most part, it didn’t matter what condition an asset was in so long as it was acquired. Entities used intimidation tactics to walk into a negotiation with a stack of patents and simply say that “my stack is bigger than your stack.” To do so, they wanted assets, no matter the warts associated with them. Today, the litigation and negotiation environments are much different. Quality, not quantity, assets define a negotiation and whether one entity has IP leverage over another.
Simply running numbers, without evaluating quality, is "out" in due diligence.
Yet, IEEE Power had a post on November 19, 2014, Patent Power 2014
This year’s roundup of the companies and organizations with the strongest U.S. patent portfolios , authored by Anthony Breitzman and Patrick Thomas, cofounders of 1790 Analytics.
LBE talked about earlier work of Breitzman in the Dec. 96 issue of Intellectual Property Today, as later mentioned in the
2009 IPBiz post
Quality lacking in HP laptops?
The topic of "patent citations as metric" was mentioned: "Patent citations turn out to be quite different in character from the citations we may be familiar with in the citation literature."]; E. Simmons, "Patent family databases 10 years later", Database, Vol. 18(3), Pg. 28, (June, 1995).
See the more recent IPBiz Evidence from micro-level patent application data or gobbledygook from the depths of legal academia?