According to Bloomberg, intellectual property rights historically brought IBM more than $1 billion a year, on average, helping offset massive research and development costs and shrinking revenue.

But last year, IBM's income from intellectual property was $626 million, its lowest point since 1996, and 2019 was not much higher. While it continues to secure licence deals, they are fewer and harder won with people even going to court to avoid paying up.

In February, online pet-food seller Chewy requested a court order to block a $36 million patent fee IBM is demanding.

Chewy accused IBM of "seeking exorbitant licensing fees for early internet patents having no value".

IBM's claims against Chewy include years old inventions such as targeted advertising and content resizing based on cursor activity, both ubiquitous on the web.

Chewy said IBM doesn't make or sell products covered by the vast majority of the thousands of patents it has received over the past 20 years, but instead just threatens to sue if companies don't agree to pay for licences. IBM has not answered Chewy's complaint, and no trial date has been set.

While outfits that use their IP licensing aggressively to make money are often referred to as patent trolls, IBM's is more akin to being a patent godfather.

Robin Feldman, a law professor at the University of California, Hastings said that with more than 38,000 active patents in its portfolio, and thousands of license agreements bolstering its legitimacy, IBM's demands have traditionally gone unchallenged.

Such patent godfathers, with large portfolios, are "able to make offers that can't be refused". Even some of the most innovative technology giants have licensed IBM patents over the years. Google, Amazon and LinkedIn are among countless companies that have had to pay up or sleep with the fishes.

Feldman, the law professor, told Bloomberg that "Being the godfather isn't what it used to be. It's not that patent aggregation as a business is over. You just make less money".