What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
Some links on this page are affiliate links: if you buy through them we may earn a commission, at no extra cost to you.
Intellectual Ventures (IV) and LG Electronics announced a patent-license agreement on November 8, 2011. The deal gave LG access to IV’s portfolio, which the companies described at the time as more than 35,000 intellectual-property assets across more than 50 technology areas. It was a license—not a sale of IV’s portfolio, a product partnership, or a publicly identified lawsuit settlement.
What the agreement gave LG
The companies described the agreement as a license to IV’s portfolio. IV was based in Bellevue, Washington; LG Electronics is a South Korean electronics manufacturer. The portfolio figure came from IV’s announcement and referred to “IP assets,” not necessarily 35,000 issued patents. Contemporaneous coverage said the count included approved and pending patents. IV’s announcement and GeekWire’s November 8, 2011 report do not identify particular patent numbers or provide a complete list of covered technologies.
That distinction matters: access under a license is not the same as owning or acquiring the underlying patents. The public announcement supports a portfolio license and describes defensive access, but does not establish that LG received unrestricted rights to every IV asset or could assert any patent it chose in any dispute.
Why LG wanted access
In the announcement, the companies presented the arrangement as a way to address LG’s short- and long-term intellectual-property concerns. They said access to IV patents could help LG defend against potential infringement claims and support counter-assertion negotiations. In practical terms, a company facing a patent allegation may seek rights to relevant patents it can use in negotiations, rather than relying only on its own portfolio.
#1 Best Overall
That was the stated business rationale, not evidence that LG was facing a particular lawsuit. Nor does the announcement quantify any savings, establish that litigation was prevented, or show that the license changed the outcome of a dispute. A patent can be useful defensively only within the agreement’s terms and in light of the relevant claims, ownership, validity, and jurisdiction.
What the public announcement left undisclosed
The short announcement gives the broad portfolio description and the parties’ rationale, but not the contract details needed to value the license or map its precise legal coverage.
| Term or detail | What was publicly stated |
|---|---|
| Financial terms or royalty rate | Not stated in the announcement. |
| Term or expiration date | Not stated in the announcement. |
| Geographic scope | Not stated in the announcement. |
| Specific patents, product categories, or standards covered | Not identified in the announcement. |
| Settlement of a named lawsuit | Not announced; the release describes a license and its potential defensive value. |
Patent licenses can differ in exclusions, eligible products, covered jurisdictions, and other limits. Because those contract terms were not published here, the announcement alone cannot show exactly which LG activities were covered or how much protection the agreement provided.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
How the deal fit IV’s licensing strategy
The LG agreement appeared amid a broader 2011 licensing push. GeekWire reported that IV had reached deals that year with companies including American Express, Samsung, HTC, Research In Motion, Pantech, SAP, Micron, and Wistron. IV’s October 19, 2011 American Express announcement used similar language about access to more than 35,000 IP assets spanning more than 50 technology areas. Together, those announcements suggest a repeatable portfolio-licensing model rather than a technology-development partnership tailored only to LG.
Rank #3
IV described its business around inventions and patent licensing; its portfolio-access arrangements could also be presented as a defensive resource for licensees. At the same time, GeekWire noted that IV was suing other companies, including Symantec, Trend Micro, Dell, HP, Nikon, and Motorola. That contrast helps explain why the company’s model drew debate: supporters could view broad licensing as a way to obtain rights and reduce risk, while critics questioned large-scale patent monetization and litigation. The existence of that wider debate does not establish that the LG agreement was coercive or litigation-driven.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.How to read the announcement today
This is a historical transaction announced on November 8, 2011, not a newly announced 2026 deal. The available announcement establishes the agreement’s general nature and stated purpose, but does not verify whether the license remains in force today. It also does not show that LG and IV jointly developed a product or that LG acquired patents outright.
Quick Recap
Best Value
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
