Posts Tagged: "license"

Open licenses are private arrangements that work within the current legal regime to encourage innovation, discourage trolls, and help attract top engineering talent. It is a win-win solution for different patenting companies and user’s society. There are several different types of most common open licenses. A License of Transfer Agreement (or shortly, a LOT agreement), that helps to prevent legal suits from non-practicing entities that purchase patents for the sole purpose of enforcing them (called Patent Assertion Entities, or PAEs). Under the LOT Agreement, every company that participates, grants a license to the other participants where the license becomes effective only when patents are transferred to non-participants.

So it now looks like this: if you are a patent owner and feel that your rights have been encroached upon, you now have to assume there will be a challenge to their validity by a potential licensee through an Inter Partes Review (IPR). If you are one of the lucky few (~25%) who survive such a challenge with at least one valid patent claim, you then have to expect an appeal. Assuming you win that appeal, then the real court battle starts in earnest and you’ll have to face what has now become a $3-5M ordeal in legal fees to get through a full trial on the merits and the routinely filed appeal should you beat all odds and win. Treble damages for willful infringement have been rarer than a dodo bird sighting and even winning does not mean you will collect your money any time soon, as the Apple-Samsung saga has recently shown.

“I don’t think investors care about names,” Croxall said. “I think they care about results. I have the troll conversation, but it is never with investors. Are they getting smarter about the risk of going to trial? I think they have… I think you get punished more for losing than rewarded for winning.” Croxall also acknowledged that the troll issue seems to have penetrated into the jury box. Hartstein would later agree that public IP companies get punished at least twice as much with a litigation loss as compared with a litigation victory.

Covenant Not to Challenge clauses are common in patent licenses, including licenses that are part of post-litigation settlements. clause is seen as a benefit bargained for under a license agreement and constitutes part of the consideration obtained by the licensor for the license. The intended effect of such a clause is to allow the licensor to make an estoppel argument in the event that licensee does challenge the patent, in spite of its agreement not to do so. However, the PTAB thus concluded that without an express grant from Congress, it did not have the authority to recognize contractual estoppel as a bar to an inter partes review.

Calling all inventors! Lifetime Brands, the largest non electrics housewares company in the United States, is hosting an Innovation Day on Monday, October 5, 2015, at their corporate headquarters in Garden City, NY. This event will give housewares inventors the opportunity to pitch their products for the purpose of landing a licensing deal with this industry leader.

Google is giving away patents to small-ish tech firms who apply and agree to join the License or Transfer (LOT) Network. Google retains a license to the patents, which can only be asserted defensively and asks the participant stay in the LOT Network for 2 years or the patents revert back to Google. Also, Google gives the participant access to browse Google’s “inorganic patent portfolio” (i.e., acquired from third parties) with an eye towards selling and licensing more patents to the participant.

While some companies continue to wait and see, we saw a dramatic shift in late 2014. The most sophisticated companies on IP matters used the uncertainty to their advantage. They hypothesized the market couldn’t get much worse, and since they would eventually need to engage in licensing discussions, they used the negotiation leverage they had during a slow market to get the best deal. Similar to a “buyer’s market” in real estate, the IP market was (and continues to be for some) a licensee’s market as many companies sit back and wait to see how the uncertainty will shake out.

Now more than ever succeeding is all about making better products and offering new and improved services quicker and more reliably than your competitors. Surprisingly, at a time when many major technology corporations are struggling to innovate, we see utter disdain for patent owners. Void from the discussion is any perspective on the real problems facing American companies – namely innovating to obtain a competitive advantage and set themselves apart from the competitors they have today and the competitors they will surely have tomorrow. Increased patent licensing, or outright acquisition of patents, will not only help, but will likely become essential for those companies who understand the importance of continually squeezing out innovation as fast and efficiently as possible.

Gulbrandsen’s chief complaint with the U.S. system centers around the fact that it has become enormously easy to challenge issued patents once they have been granted. In fact, organizations in pursuit of acquired technology are leveraging the kill-rate at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), to negotiate lower licensing payments. Threats are made that patents will be challenged in Inter Partes review, “so that you amend the license and reduce the fees,” Gulbrandsen explained. “So, immediately you know that devalues the patent and devalues the license agreement that you’ve got.”

To hear the rhetoric from lobbyists for some large tech companies you would think patent licensing is some sort of shady business, akin to extortion. Never mind the hypocrisy inherent in these same firms earning tens of millions of dollars annually licensing their own patents — most of which are never used in their own products — to other companies. The truth is that patent licensing is as American as apple pie, and always has been.

An effort to address bad actors may unnecessarily create significant hurdles for innovators seeking to enforce or license the rights to their own innovations. The fear of unintended consequences requires targeted reform that will specifically address only the abusive behaviors relied upon by the bad actors, namely misleading and fraudulent demand letters. The trick will be to tackle these abusive behaviors that serve no legitimate purpose while not making legitimate business communications impossible. Luckily, it is not difficult to spot fraudulent demand letters and distinguish them from legitimate business inquiries. But will Congress be able to strike the appropriate legislative solution?

There are a variety of problems with this paper, the conclusions reached and the methodology. Perhaps the largest problem is that Professors Feldman and Lemley rely on subjective evidence rather than volumes of objective evidence that contradict the self-serving responses from those who are licensing rights they are already infringing. What else would you suspect from a homogenous subset of individuals who collectively don’t like the patent system very much? Collective bias seems a far more likely answer as to why there is “near unanimity,” as the Professors claim. Even so, how is it possible that any group could ever achieve near unanimity about anything? The fact that there was near unanimity demands one to question whether there is a bias or flaw in the survey, yet no such inquiry seems to have been made.

At the heart of the Patent Utility is an advanced semantic search engine that identifies the technologies that are relevant to any individual business or entity. The analytical processes behind the semantic search engine will capture text-based information about a company both from publicly available sources and the company itself. This information will typically include product specifications, description of core technologies, identification of key competitors, and research and development priorities. The information is then processed and analyzed against the entire active U.S. patent database, which currently stands at 2.3 million patents and millions of pending applications. The process cross-references the company’s products, components, services, materials, methods and processes with specific patents and claims in the U.S. patent database. The more closely the patent claims relate to a company’s information, the more relevant the patent containing those claims is.