Otherwise I could just skip the whole patent concept, and just be there first with the best, but the market would probably evaporate pretty quickly, I am supposing. Different strategies for different fields I tend to think.

Have you voted for your favorite IP blog yet? I like it a lot here, as the discussions tend to be very elightened. and lacking in rudeness for the most part. The odd loose cannon can usually just be ignored, and wisdom and education can be pursued without undue interference.

But then again there are now derivation proceedings instead of interference proceedings. Looks as if it might take several years to figure that whole thing out. Why is that even neccesary? To align our patent system with other folks overseas? Why should an American inventor care about that even slightly?

Meanwhile our duly elected representatives are all too happy to sell my IP rights to the highest bidder. In this case IT and phone innovations, which might only be valid for about another 8 years. What then in re patent law?

Contingency representation in patent cases was once upon a time completely unheard of. It is still not at all common, but it is far more common than it used to be. Those who are involved with working with inventors, either on a contingency basis or in partnership, tell me that they take about 1% of what they are approached with. That number seems quite reasonable and suggests that contingency representation is alive and well. Most inventors think they have great patents and convince themselves that things that are not infringing are infringing. So there are just a lot of bad cases that inventors want to pursue. In my experience overwhelmingly those who want contingency representation have a very shaky case. There are also situations where infringement might be straight forward but there isn’t much in the way of damages. You just can’t take a contingency case in those circumstances.

For inventors with a solid patent and widespread infringement there will likely be patent litigators who would be willing to take a matter on a contingency, or companies that will partner on enforcement, such as Acacia. But in these deals the split is typically at best 60-40, but more commonly a 50-50 split after expenses are paid. This may be the only route to go though because those who are infringing may not be willing to talk about a license as long as an inventor is going it alone.

The other alternative is to try and sell the patent. While that leads to upfront money it is a lot less than what most inventors would like to obtain.

Cheers.

-Gene

Stan~

Gone with the stroke of a gavel in some cases, so I hope to never have to be there. I asked my patent agent about what might happen during possible litigation, and he said something like;

“Why would we ever want to appear in a court of law?” The proverbial ounce of prevention being the unspoken message.

Stan~

Of course, if no-injunction becomes the prevailing wisdom, “intellectual” is also called into doubt.

Did the district cite Justice Kennedy’s concurring opinion in eBay. In citing eBay, Rader’s opinion cites primarily to the Opinion of the Court (written by Justice Thomas) and once to Chief Justice Robert’s brief concurring opinion; that’s telling to me. District courts, in particular, that cite to Juistice Kennedy’s bizarre concurring opinion tend to deny permanent injunctions; that was true of the z4 Technologies v. Microsoft (ED Texas 2006) which was the first case I saw that applied the eBay ruling to deny a permanent injunction, and cited specifically to Kennedy’s concurring opinion to do so.