Tonight, I suggest reading IP Navigator's The Future of Patent Monetization. It's well written and realistic, but the information is introductory. Bottom line-- you should carefully consider the costs before you launch into the business of patent monetization.
Copyright © 2014 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Showing posts with label patent monetizers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label patent monetizers. Show all posts
Monday, October 13, 2014
Monday, October 6, 2014
Morton & Shapiro - Strategic Patent Acquisitions
Morton & Shapiro's Strategic Patent Acquisition:
"We report data on patent litigation activity initiated by patent assertion entities and discuss the tactics used by these entities to monetize the patents they acquire. We develop a simple economic model to evaluate the effect of enhanced patent monetization on innovation and on consumers. We then study the economic effects of several different categories of patent acquisitions based on the type of seller, the type of buyer, and the patent portfolio involved."
Copyright © 2014 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
"We report data on patent litigation activity initiated by patent assertion entities and discuss the tactics used by these entities to monetize the patents they acquire. We develop a simple economic model to evaluate the effect of enhanced patent monetization on innovation and on consumers. We then study the economic effects of several different categories of patent acquisitions based on the type of seller, the type of buyer, and the patent portfolio involved."
Copyright © 2014 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Monday, September 29, 2014
Apple is Being Sued for Infringing 13 SanDisk Patents
Tonight, check out Apple is Being Sued for Infringing 13 SanDisk Patents. This article caught my attention because the title makes it appear SanDisk is suing a customer, but instead it is a story about non-practicing entities in Europe that purchased some of SanDisk's flash memory patents and are busy trying to monetize the patents.
As stated in the article: "Ireland's Longitude Licensing Ltd and Luxembourg's Longitude Flash Memory Systems S.a.r.l. have filed a joint patent infringement lawsuit against Apple. The lawsuit involves a whopping 13 counts of infringement covering most iDevices and iPod models. The plaintiffs are using former SanDisk patents that they now own against Apple."
If Apple products use SanDisk flash memory, it makes me wonder why patent exhaustion, implied licensing and/or laches won't become an issue.
Copyright © 2014 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
As stated in the article: "Ireland's Longitude Licensing Ltd and Luxembourg's Longitude Flash Memory Systems S.a.r.l. have filed a joint patent infringement lawsuit against Apple. The lawsuit involves a whopping 13 counts of infringement covering most iDevices and iPod models. The plaintiffs are using former SanDisk patents that they now own against Apple."
If Apple products use SanDisk flash memory, it makes me wonder why patent exhaustion, implied licensing and/or laches won't become an issue.
Copyright © 2014 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Monday, September 22, 2014
Forbes - New IP Company Marathon Patent Group Promises Diversification Amid Risky Environment
Tonight, I suggest reading Richard Finger of Forbes New IP Company Marathon Patent Group Promises Diversification Amid Risky Environment.
As stated in Forbes, the Marathon Patent Group has a distinctive strategy:
"Although Marathon Patent Group certainly carries its share of risks, like any small company, it is undeniably differentiating itself in the patent sector. Most IP enforcement and licensing groups are focused on big-dollar patents, recruiting a law firm on contingency, and then awaiting their luck in the courtroom or negotiation table. There have been notable success stories, such as Vringo (VRNG) and VirnetX Holdings (VHC) with their well-publicized lawsuits against Google and Microsoft. Yet these companies (and there are many others like them) have no predictable cash flow. They receive a jolt of cash at random times, but it is very difficult, if not impossible, to place an ongoing enterprise value onto these companies. Mr. Croxall, in contrast, by purchasing patent portfolios with proven licensing history, will create some predictability for his company. Likewise, if he can acquire enough performing portfolios, then there will be sufficient diversification such that no single court case or licensing event will hurt his earnings needle significantly. Moreover, the consulting division of Marathon Patent Group will also be producing a stream of revenue- entirely independent from litigation. As a consultancy, it simply charges advisory fees. Thus, although Marathon Patent Group operates in an IP sector that has traditionally defied valuation metrics, with predictable earnings, it could prove to be a more stable company."
I have no relationship with Marathon Patent Group nor with the author of the article, but liked the article's details regarding a patent monetizing model that may become more popular in the future.
Copyright © 2014 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
As stated in Forbes, the Marathon Patent Group has a distinctive strategy:
"Although Marathon Patent Group certainly carries its share of risks, like any small company, it is undeniably differentiating itself in the patent sector. Most IP enforcement and licensing groups are focused on big-dollar patents, recruiting a law firm on contingency, and then awaiting their luck in the courtroom or negotiation table. There have been notable success stories, such as Vringo (VRNG) and VirnetX Holdings (VHC) with their well-publicized lawsuits against Google and Microsoft. Yet these companies (and there are many others like them) have no predictable cash flow. They receive a jolt of cash at random times, but it is very difficult, if not impossible, to place an ongoing enterprise value onto these companies. Mr. Croxall, in contrast, by purchasing patent portfolios with proven licensing history, will create some predictability for his company. Likewise, if he can acquire enough performing portfolios, then there will be sufficient diversification such that no single court case or licensing event will hurt his earnings needle significantly. Moreover, the consulting division of Marathon Patent Group will also be producing a stream of revenue- entirely independent from litigation. As a consultancy, it simply charges advisory fees. Thus, although Marathon Patent Group operates in an IP sector that has traditionally defied valuation metrics, with predictable earnings, it could prove to be a more stable company."
I have no relationship with Marathon Patent Group nor with the author of the article, but liked the article's details regarding a patent monetizing model that may become more popular in the future.
Copyright © 2014 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Sunday, August 17, 2014
Jay Walker's Patent Properties the ASCAP of Patent Licensing?
Jay Walker, Priceline founder, is launching a startup Patent Properties to produce a marketplace for patent owners much like ASCAP which represented musicians and publishers to reach an agreement where radio stations paid a reasonable fee to play songs licensed by ASCAP. Since 1920, ASCAP has collected nearly $1 billion in royalties.
Patent Properties hopes to make a marketplace for patent owners that will broker low cost deals between inventors and users. Mr. Walker states, "we believe that by using simplicity, technology and common sense that works for everybody, and especially by keeping prices very low, we can replicate in the intellectual property and patent world what ASCAP did in the music world." Walker notes only 5% of 2.3 million U.S. patents enforce are licensed due to the high cost of patent litigation and companies unwillingness to take a patent license until forced.
Patent Properties asks that a patent owner agree to a no-fault system that makes the patented invention available to companies that pay a monthly fee of $1,000 to license 100 patents deemed statistically relevant to the company's business. Mr. Walker states each time a patent gets packaged an inventor can expect on average $100/year.
Mr. Walker notes since it won't have permission to use all US patents, the subscribers will be provided insurance that covers 50% of legal costs arising from infringement lawsuits up to, of course, a limit.
Copyright © 2014 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Patent Properties hopes to make a marketplace for patent owners that will broker low cost deals between inventors and users. Mr. Walker states, "we believe that by using simplicity, technology and common sense that works for everybody, and especially by keeping prices very low, we can replicate in the intellectual property and patent world what ASCAP did in the music world." Walker notes only 5% of 2.3 million U.S. patents enforce are licensed due to the high cost of patent litigation and companies unwillingness to take a patent license until forced.
Patent Properties asks that a patent owner agree to a no-fault system that makes the patented invention available to companies that pay a monthly fee of $1,000 to license 100 patents deemed statistically relevant to the company's business. Mr. Walker states each time a patent gets packaged an inventor can expect on average $100/year.
Mr. Walker notes since it won't have permission to use all US patents, the subscribers will be provided insurance that covers 50% of legal costs arising from infringement lawsuits up to, of course, a limit.
Copyright © 2014 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Sunday, February 16, 2014
Professor Feldman - Patent Trolling: Why Bio & Pharmaceuticals Are at Risk
In the study, Patent Trolling: Why Bio & Pharmaceuticals Are At Risk, Professor Feldman and Harvard Fellow Dr. Nicholson Price discuss patent trolls- also referred to as non-practicing entities, patent assertion entities, and patent monetizers- moving into the biotech, pharmaceutical, and life science industries.
The authors state highlights include:
"With the Association of University Technology Managers revisiting its policy against selling to NPEs, the authors considered whether universities could provide an extensive pool of ammunition for NPEs to launch against current products.
To supplement increasing anecdotal evidence that patent trolling is moving into bio and pharma, the authors examined the life science holdings of five major universities.We skimmed the patent holdings for four of the of five university systems with the highest number of patents issued in fiscal year 2011: the University of California system, the University of Texas system, MIT, and CalTech. We added as a wild-card the University of Southern Florida, the school among the top 10 in 2011 patent grants which had the lowest ratio of license revenues to research expenditures.
The study identified dozens of patents that could be deployed against current bio and pharm industries, following the patterns that NPEs have used against other industries. These include patents on drug formulas, methods of treatments, research methods, dosage forms, and others.
In deciding whether to undertake the study, the authors agonized over whether the potential for harm outweighed the potential benefit. After all, if reform efforts are not undertaken, the work could simply provide a handy road map for those who would follow.
Life sciences trolling is predictable and in its infancy, however. The study is intended to sound a warning bell."
Even if you are not the biotech or life science industries, the study gives insight into patent troll strategies.
Copyright © 2014 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
The authors state highlights include:
"With the Association of University Technology Managers revisiting its policy against selling to NPEs, the authors considered whether universities could provide an extensive pool of ammunition for NPEs to launch against current products.
To supplement increasing anecdotal evidence that patent trolling is moving into bio and pharma, the authors examined the life science holdings of five major universities.We skimmed the patent holdings for four of the of five university systems with the highest number of patents issued in fiscal year 2011: the University of California system, the University of Texas system, MIT, and CalTech. We added as a wild-card the University of Southern Florida, the school among the top 10 in 2011 patent grants which had the lowest ratio of license revenues to research expenditures.
The study identified dozens of patents that could be deployed against current bio and pharm industries, following the patterns that NPEs have used against other industries. These include patents on drug formulas, methods of treatments, research methods, dosage forms, and others.
In deciding whether to undertake the study, the authors agonized over whether the potential for harm outweighed the potential benefit. After all, if reform efforts are not undertaken, the work could simply provide a handy road map for those who would follow.
Life sciences trolling is predictable and in its infancy, however. The study is intended to sound a warning bell."
Copyright © 2014 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Tuesday, October 22, 2013
Patent Trolls or Patent Monetizer - Goodlatte's Innovation Act of 2013
The news media has barraged the public with the evil of patent trolls: they harm our business and create nothing of value. Yes, patent litigation abuse needs to be curbed, but how?
Goodlatte's Innovation Act of 2013 proposes to change things. The Act limits legal estoppel to issues actually raised in post-grant proceedings and increases transparency on patent ownership, which should help, but also proposes to radically change decades of US patent law by introducing fee shifting perhaps in many if not all cases. This is more than "modernizing" 35 USC 285 folks this is giving up the American rule. We have this rule to encourage small entities to be able to protect their rights against large interests. If passed, large company defendants will have an incentive to overspend on legal fees, resulting in a win (how could they not win if they spent an order of magnitude more?), then hand the losing patent owner a very large legal bill. We are talking millions in legal fees. This will soon deter a small entity from enforcing a patent against any large company that decides infringement makes sense. The Act also heightens an infringement complaint to essentially require the patent owner submit a claim chart showing infringement with the complaint, and do it all before any discovery! Is this how we want it to work, establish infringement without discovery? Such a provision should be carefully considered by the patent community, because it only benefits large companies.
Beside carefully considering the impact of the laws, we need to drop the pejorative labels. Many acknowledge we shouldn't use the term "patent troll." Instead, we should refer to "patent assertion entities," but months later it is back to calling non-practicing patent owners patent trolls in the press, which preconditions the debate. Consider if you were accused of bullying others. Let's assume we don't know yet if you are. What if we each time we cross paths I ask, "So Mr. Bully, what have you been doing today?"
Congress appears to be introducing patent reform based on PR, media, and lobbyists. Many arguments raised against "patent trolls" might be raised against any patent licensing. Is it evil for someone to seek to obtain income from patent licensing and/or litigating rather than provide a service or make a product? IBM, Microsoft, Texas Instruments, HP, Intel, and SanDisk have all licensed patents beyond what is in their products, but that is left out of the media barrage, because these companies make valuable products and services (even if not related to a patent) and therefore are not "patent trolls."
We must delve into the facts to understand how to reduce patent litigation abuse. The FTC recently launched an investigation into patent monetizer. Some academics have done a great job of investigating into the facts. In The AIA 500 Expanded: Effects of Patent Monetization Entities, Professor Robin Feldman investigated almost 13,000 cases and 30,000 patents in lawsuits filed in 2007-2008 and 2011-2012 and draws interesting conclusions about how patent monetizers are reacting to changes of the patent law in the America Invents Act (AIA). This fact investigation with reasonable conclusions is a step in the right direction and should continue. Some of the findings of Professor Feldman's article:
Goodlatte's Innovation Act of 2013 proposes to change things. The Act limits legal estoppel to issues actually raised in post-grant proceedings and increases transparency on patent ownership, which should help, but also proposes to radically change decades of US patent law by introducing fee shifting perhaps in many if not all cases. This is more than "modernizing" 35 USC 285 folks this is giving up the American rule. We have this rule to encourage small entities to be able to protect their rights against large interests. If passed, large company defendants will have an incentive to overspend on legal fees, resulting in a win (how could they not win if they spent an order of magnitude more?), then hand the losing patent owner a very large legal bill. We are talking millions in legal fees. This will soon deter a small entity from enforcing a patent against any large company that decides infringement makes sense. The Act also heightens an infringement complaint to essentially require the patent owner submit a claim chart showing infringement with the complaint, and do it all before any discovery! Is this how we want it to work, establish infringement without discovery? Such a provision should be carefully considered by the patent community, because it only benefits large companies.
Beside carefully considering the impact of the laws, we need to drop the pejorative labels. Many acknowledge we shouldn't use the term "patent troll." Instead, we should refer to "patent assertion entities," but months later it is back to calling non-practicing patent owners patent trolls in the press, which preconditions the debate. Consider if you were accused of bullying others. Let's assume we don't know yet if you are. What if we each time we cross paths I ask, "So Mr. Bully, what have you been doing today?"
Congress appears to be introducing patent reform based on PR, media, and lobbyists. Many arguments raised against "patent trolls" might be raised against any patent licensing. Is it evil for someone to seek to obtain income from patent licensing and/or litigating rather than provide a service or make a product? IBM, Microsoft, Texas Instruments, HP, Intel, and SanDisk have all licensed patents beyond what is in their products, but that is left out of the media barrage, because these companies make valuable products and services (even if not related to a patent) and therefore are not "patent trolls."
We must delve into the facts to understand how to reduce patent litigation abuse. The FTC recently launched an investigation into patent monetizer. Some academics have done a great job of investigating into the facts. In The AIA 500 Expanded: Effects of Patent Monetization Entities, Professor Robin Feldman investigated almost 13,000 cases and 30,000 patents in lawsuits filed in 2007-2008 and 2011-2012 and draws interesting conclusions about how patent monetizers are reacting to changes of the patent law in the America Invents Act (AIA). This fact investigation with reasonable conclusions is a step in the right direction and should continue. Some of the findings of Professor Feldman's article:
- In 2012, patent monetizers filed 58.7% of all patent lawsuits filed in the USA. In contrast, patent monetizers filed only 24.6% of US patent lawsuits.
- The recently issued US patents are most frequently litigated, which might mean people are applying for patents with the plan to file lawsuits.
- Current mechanisms to notify the public when a patent is asserted in lawsuit did not operate 2/3 of the time.
- Month-by-month data show a massive spike in monetizer activity the month prior to the joinder provisions of America Invents Act became effective then the lawsuits began to rise again in the last part of 2012. I thinks she gets it right in noting, "The data demonstrate that the increase in activity by monetizers in recent years is not an artifact of the changes in the America Invents Act, but represents a true rise in the level of litigation activity."
I am not saying let's give any patent monetizer a free pass, but let's stop labeling them patent trolls and let the FTC investigation take its course. It should help identify conduct that needs to be stopped before we rush to change laws. Otherwise, Congress' efforts to change the law may bar legitimate patent enforcement and licensing activity.
Copyright © 2013 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Friday, October 4, 2013
Professor Robin Feldman - Prolific Patent Scholar
If you follow this blog, you know I like to read and post late at night. One of my "late night discoveries" after I started blogging was Professor Robin Feldman. I had met her husband Boris Feldman, a partner WSGR, as an associate in 1993 -1998. Boris had all of our respect (despite the toys in the office) because of his brilliance in fending off opportunistic SEC claims. A typical result for Boris? Case dismissed. No discovery, just dismissed. Someone mentioning his wife was a law professor at UC Hastings, but that's all I remembered ... I was too busy.
So when I stumbled across The Giants Among Us on the rise of patent aggregators and saw one of the authors was a UC Hastings law professor Robin Feldman ... I thought wait is this Boris' wife? As I read Giants, I was stunned. It was a tour de force and gave many fresh details regarding Intellectual Ventures, a firm that has been shrouded in secrecy. The fact research was excellent. It followed she had graduated second in her class at Stanford Law school.
Tonight, when I saw UC Hastings law school had an article Robin Feldman: Shaping Patent Policy Through Scholarship noting her influential law review articles in recent years, I was not surprised. I appreciate her scholarship and hope it continues well into the future. She strikes me as someone who is relentlessly investigating and reporting on the challenges of US patent law, something we need before Congress passes "helpful" bills for the sake of the US economy. Thus, reading her articles is much a better starting point to understanding today's challenges than the agenda set forth by corporate lobbyists.
Copyright © 2013 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
So when I stumbled across The Giants Among Us on the rise of patent aggregators and saw one of the authors was a UC Hastings law professor Robin Feldman ... I thought wait is this Boris' wife? As I read Giants, I was stunned. It was a tour de force and gave many fresh details regarding Intellectual Ventures, a firm that has been shrouded in secrecy. The fact research was excellent. It followed she had graduated second in her class at Stanford Law school.
Tonight, when I saw UC Hastings law school had an article Robin Feldman: Shaping Patent Policy Through Scholarship noting her influential law review articles in recent years, I was not surprised. I appreciate her scholarship and hope it continues well into the future. She strikes me as someone who is relentlessly investigating and reporting on the challenges of US patent law, something we need before Congress passes "helpful" bills for the sake of the US economy. Thus, reading her articles is much a better starting point to understanding today's challenges than the agenda set forth by corporate lobbyists.
Copyright © 2013 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Tuesday, April 9, 2013
Sara Jeruss, Robin Feldman, and Thomas Ewing - The America Invents Act 500 Expanded: Effects of Patent Monetization Entities
Today, Robin Feldman, Professor of Law at UC Hastings Law School, informed me that she and co-authors, Sara Jeruss and Thomas Ewing, released an expanded study on patent monetizers: The America Invents Act 500 Expanded: Effects of Patent Monetization Entities. One interesting finding is patent monetizers filed 56% of patent infringement lawsuits in 2012. I am still reading it but want to pass it along now. Here is a reformatted version of their abstract of the study:
"Public attention is increasingly focused on patent monetization entities. Known colloquially as “patent trolls” or more neutrally as “NPEs,” these entities derive income from licensing or litigating, rather than producing a product.
In 2011, Congress directed the nonpartisan GAO to study the consequences of patent litigation by NPEs. We provided data for that study, producing and coding a random sample consisting of 100 of cases filed each year over five years from 2007-2011. 500 cases is a small sample. Thus, we have expanded that study to examine all patent litigations filed across four years, 2007-2008 and 2011-2012. This involved analyzing 13,000 cases and 30,000 patents asserted.
We also traced the transfer history of the patents. Our analysis confirms what we saw in the smaller sample: patent infringement litigation by patent monetization entities has risen dramatically. Most striking, as of 2012, litigation by patent monetization entities now represents a majority of the patent litigations filed in the United States. This is a sharp rise from 2007, when patent monetization entities filed only 24%. In addition, of the parties who filed the greatest number of patent litigations in the years we studied, 9 out of 10 are patent monetization entities, and only one is an operating company.
Among other interesting results, our analysis revealed another problem previously unrecognized. Mechanisms for notifying the public when patents have been asserted in litigation are woefully inadequate. Despite federal legislation, the system was not operative for more than two-thirds of the patents asserted."
Also see: Press release and a video of Professor Feldman summarizing the study
Copyright © 2013 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
"Public attention is increasingly focused on patent monetization entities. Known colloquially as “patent trolls” or more neutrally as “NPEs,” these entities derive income from licensing or litigating, rather than producing a product.
In 2011, Congress directed the nonpartisan GAO to study the consequences of patent litigation by NPEs. We provided data for that study, producing and coding a random sample consisting of 100 of cases filed each year over five years from 2007-2011. 500 cases is a small sample. Thus, we have expanded that study to examine all patent litigations filed across four years, 2007-2008 and 2011-2012. This involved analyzing 13,000 cases and 30,000 patents asserted.
We also traced the transfer history of the patents. Our analysis confirms what we saw in the smaller sample: patent infringement litigation by patent monetization entities has risen dramatically. Most striking, as of 2012, litigation by patent monetization entities now represents a majority of the patent litigations filed in the United States. This is a sharp rise from 2007, when patent monetization entities filed only 24%. In addition, of the parties who filed the greatest number of patent litigations in the years we studied, 9 out of 10 are patent monetization entities, and only one is an operating company.
Among other interesting results, our analysis revealed another problem previously unrecognized. Mechanisms for notifying the public when patents have been asserted in litigation are woefully inadequate. Despite federal legislation, the system was not operative for more than two-thirds of the patents asserted."
Also see: Press release and a video of Professor Feldman summarizing the study
Copyright © 2013 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Thursday, January 17, 2013
Solutions to the Software Patent Problem - Conference Materials
On November 16, 2012, Santa Clara University staged a conference Solutions to the Software Patent Problem. After attending I posted: Richard Stallman and Professor Duffy Clash - Solutions to the Software Patent Problem - Santa Clara University - November 16, 2012.
Today, SCU emailed the conference materials:
View the videos
Where applicable, we’ve posted the speakers’ slides as separately downloadable files. Videos synced with presentation slides and just videos (for those that do not use Microsoft products)
Speaker essays. Also check out the related series of essays published in Wired.com Opinion
Media coverage of the event
Results of the audience polls about which solutions they liked best
Other conference resources
The conference page provides a one-stop inventory of all of these resources.
View High Tech Law Institute blog: http://law.scu.edu/blog/hightech/
Copyright © 2013 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Today, SCU emailed the conference materials:
View the videos
Where applicable, we’ve posted the speakers’ slides as separately downloadable files. Videos synced with presentation slides and just videos (for those that do not use Microsoft products)
Speaker essays. Also check out the related series of essays published in Wired.com Opinion
Media coverage of the event
Results of the audience polls about which solutions they liked best
Other conference resources
The conference page provides a one-stop inventory of all of these resources.
View High Tech Law Institute blog: http://law.scu.edu/blog/hightech/
Copyright © 2013 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Saturday, December 15, 2012
FTC and DOJ Workshop - Patent Assertion Entities - Revisited
On November 25, 2012, I posted an article that the FTC and DOJ was hosting a free workshop on December 10 to consider the impact of patent assertion entities (PAEs) on innovation and competition and if the PAEs raise antitrust issues.
If you are interested in what leading academics, attorneys, economists, and industry representatives had to say, please see their videos and slide presentations at the Patent Assertion Entity Activities Workshop Page.
Copyright © 2012 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Sunday, December 2, 2012
Jeruss - Effects of Patent Monetization Entities on US Litigation
In The America Invents Act 500: Effects of Patent Monetization Entities on US Litigation Sara Jeruss of Lex Machina Inc., Robin Cooper Feldman of University of California Hastings College of the Law, Joshua H. Walker of Simpson Thacher & Bartlett LLP, Stanford Law School wrote an interesting paper that will be published in Duke Law & Technology Review.
The article explores non-practicing entities (NPE) or patent trolls or what they call patent monetizers affect on U.S. patent litigation. Although Professor Feldman is not the lead author, it bears her signature in terms of meticulous research, transparent assumptions, and careful conclusions.
The article flowed out of Congress' mandate for the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to study the effects of non-practicing entities on patent litigation. Using Lex Machina's database they collected and coded a set of patent lawsuits filed over the past five years then analyzed what it meant.
Key findings? Patent monetizers' lawsuits increased from 22% to nearly 40% of the cases in the last five years. Universities are not that big of a player, accounting for only 0.2% of the lawsuits. Patent monetizers tend to settle prior to a summary judgment decision, which points to what may be involved. Even though it calls NPE's "modern villains" of the system, it doesn't resolve for me whether patent monetizers are bad or good for the US, but does confirm their rising participation in patent litigation.
Copyright © 2012 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
The article explores non-practicing entities (NPE) or patent trolls or what they call patent monetizers affect on U.S. patent litigation. Although Professor Feldman is not the lead author, it bears her signature in terms of meticulous research, transparent assumptions, and careful conclusions.
The article flowed out of Congress' mandate for the Government Accountability Office (GAO) to study the effects of non-practicing entities on patent litigation. Using Lex Machina's database they collected and coded a set of patent lawsuits filed over the past five years then analyzed what it meant.
Key findings? Patent monetizers' lawsuits increased from 22% to nearly 40% of the cases in the last five years. Universities are not that big of a player, accounting for only 0.2% of the lawsuits. Patent monetizers tend to settle prior to a summary judgment decision, which points to what may be involved. Even though it calls NPE's "modern villains" of the system, it doesn't resolve for me whether patent monetizers are bad or good for the US, but does confirm their rising participation in patent litigation.
Copyright © 2012 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Friday, November 30, 2012
PTO Seeking Transparency in Patent Ownership Roundtable
The PTO is considering regulations to require greater transparency concerning ownership of patents and patent applications. I am interested to see patent aggregators or patent monetizers views on this topic.
For details see Notice of Roundtable on Proposed Requirements for Recordation of Real-Party-in-Interest Information Throughout Application Pendency and Patent Term.
Copyright © 2012 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
For details see Notice of Roundtable on Proposed Requirements for Recordation of Real-Party-in-Interest Information Throughout Application Pendency and Patent Term.
Copyright © 2012 Robert Moll. All rights reserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)