This case asks students to identify and evaluate the merits of two factors that have led a buy-side analyst to conclude that an acquiring company is a high-risk investment: (1) the company's allocation of acquisition proceeds and (2) the quality of the target's intellectual-property (IP) portfolio. The acquirer's allocation of the acquisition cost of the target is quite different from that of one of the company's previous deals. Careful interpretation of each line item for both acquisitions yields insights into the value management seeks with the acquisition. An IP-quality report supplied by an independent IP consulting firm likewise raises a number of issues students should identify. The primary objectives of the case are to (1) introduce IP-quality concepts as they relate to a firm's patent portfolio, (2) understand the accounting basis for firms' purchase-price allocations in IP-intensive acquisitions, and (3) compare and contrast the risk implications of acquisitions of in-process portfolios of drug candidates with established products.

In December 1998, an intellectual property executive at DuPont pondered a new program for the 196-year-old company. The executive was reviewing a proposal to donate DuPont patents to universities around the United States. The move promised substantial financial benefits for DuPont-the company could save on fees to maintain the patents, and they could gain significant tax deductions. But should DuPont make such a donation, and if so, should it offer patents in the life sciences or in another discipline? Did the program hold any strategic or tax-related risks for DuPont?

In September 2003, Jeffrey Immelt, CEO of General Electric, must evaluate a final proposal for GE to acquire Amersham plc, the leading producer of contrast agents used in medical diagnostics. The case permits the valuation of Amersham based on peer firms, comparable transactions, and recent trading history. But the focus of analysis is on the robustness of Amersham's intellectual property (IP). On close examination, the company's IP position is weaker than it appears, given recent patents filed by competitors. The economic impact of these IP challenges may be tested in the case of the company's leading product, Visipaque, for which the case gives cash flows. Discounted cash flow analysis reveals great sensitivity to the remaining years of effective patent life. A key lesson underscores the importance of due-diligence research on a firm's IP position.

In September 2003, Jeffrey Immelt, CEO of General Electric, must evaluate a final proposal for GE to acquire Amersham plc, the leading producer of contrast agents used in medical diagnostics. The case permits the valuation of Amersham based on peer firms, comparable transactions, and recent trading history. But the focus of analysis is on the robustness of Amersham's intellectual property (IP). On close examination, the company's IP position is weaker than it appears, given recent patents filed by competitors. The economic impact of these IP challenges may be tested in the case of the company's leading product, Visipaque, for which the case gives cash flows. Discounted cash flow analysis reveals great sensitivity to the remaining years of effective patent life. A key lesson underscores the importance of due-diligence research on a firm's IP position.