* Consider the challenges Tessera faced in commercializing its chip scale packaging technology. What alternative did it have for monetizing these inventions? Were there alternative business models that might have been practical for it to pursue? Tessera’s basic licensing model was to try to maintain carrot licensing and obtain royalties, but switch to stick licensing and ensure the protection of the firm’s rights at a maturity phase of the life cycle of the licensing program, as the licensees begin to gain the capabilities of manufacturing the particular technology and to share the related know-how. The challenges to Tessera’s conventional monetizing majorly came from two changes. First, the case of NTP v. RIM and that of eBay v. MercExchange dramatically increased the failure of injunctions. Second, even though global emerging markets such as China gained manufacturing capabilities, these countries had insufficient infrastructures for intellectual property enforcement. Both of the changes increased infringers who practically would hardly lose their profits, leaving those who keep the IP contracts unfair. One straightforward alternative was to keep innovating ahead of licensees to ensure the competitive advantage. But usually Tessera focused on new packaging development and aggregation of complimentary patents to bargain the otherwise decreasing price. Tessera might have developed more diversified service models by training the employees to understand the licensees’ products and providing relevant support services. This will increase the operational costs; however, if properly managed, the service fees not just bring profits but the customer stickiness also increases for longer relationships.

* How would a licensee view Teressa's chip sale packaging technology over time, and what might be its motivations? * Do you think the