Posts Tagged: "npe"

What may be less well known is that Octane was not itself a “patent troll” case. Rather, Octane involved another kind of abusive patent litigation; namely, a large company asserting a patent it pulled “off the shelf” against a small start-up competitor. While patent trolls gain economic advantage through economies of scale, large companies have economic advantages over smaller competitors by virtue of their size and resources, and can similarly abuse the system. They can use the high cost to defend patent litigation as a competitive weapon, either to force the smaller competitor to exit the market, discontinue a product line, or pay an unwarranted royalty (thereby hindering the competitor in the marketplace). On remand, the District Court in the Octane case recognized just this sort of economic coercion, and found the case exceptional warranting a fee award. And last week, the District Court awarded almost $2 million in fees and costs to Octane, the prevailing accused infringer.

After a 13% decrease in patent litigation in 2014, we are currently back to the same level of activity that we saw historically, with 2015 shaping up to have an average of circa 5000 new cases. Now the REALLY interesting data point is that most cases (roughly 70%) were brought this year by an operating company… Although the pendulum has by no way stopped its course and there are still many forces at work that wish to push it to swing even further, its momentum has definitely slowed.

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.

HHS is suing a defendant that merely wants to market a generic version of a drug that is used to treat patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). Not only is the United States government a patent troll, but the government is also trying to deprive patients who need live saving HIV drugs an affordable generic version. Egad!

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.

It is truly a shame that so many have bought into the demonization of patent owners without any critical thought. In order to believe the narrative emanating from certain Silicon Valley giants you would have to believe the existence of helpless multinational, multi-billion dollar companies on their knees and wholly incapable of defending themselves against despicable independent inventors, diabolical universities, and monstrous scientific researchers. After all, looking to find a cure for cancer, or trying to figure out how to clean up the environment, or invent the next great kitchen gadget that will be the darling of QVC by definition makes someone vile, immoral, corrupt and down right sinful! A real devil in disguise!

One of the largest risks for a successful technology-based small business, startup, or individual inventor, is success itself—successful inventions invite predation by large market incumbents. The only protection many inventors have against loss of substantial investment in bringing a raw invention through the process of R&D, manufacturing, and establishing a market, is the patent system; patents provide the foundation of the market for inventions. For the patent system to work in “little guy vs. big guy” situations, the help of patent enforcement specialty firms is often required. This help must be financed, and often the best financing is through contingency arrangements, partnerships, or outright sale of the patents. For over a century, such patent intermediaries have provided important avenues for patent owners to keep control and coordinate investments and appropriate returns on their inventions. The patent enforcement-specialty firms of today are NPEs, more commonly referred to pejoratively as “patent trolls.”

Earlier today the Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on patent reform. The hearing was titled The Impact of Abusive Patent Litigation Practices on the American Economy. There was a variety of diverse views presented by the witnesses, including one witness, Krish Gupta, who continued to cite the bogus and thoroughly debunked Bessen-Meurer “study” that erroneously claims that patent trolls…

The order bars the company, MPHJ Technology Investments, LLC, and its law firm from making deceptive representations when asserting patent rights. The settlement with MPHJ, announced in November 2014, is the first time the FTC has taken action using its consumer protection authority against a patent assertion entity.

The U.S. economy is full of intermediaries everywhere you look. But for some reason we have demonized the intermediaries in the market for innovation. Think of it this way. Most people buy their groceries at a grocery story. That grocery store does not grow any of the vegetables, raise the meat, nor catch the fish. It is simply an intermediary. Now I can see why from the point of view of a manufacturer the PAE may be a nuisance. But from the inventor’s point of view the PAE is a valuable intermediary.

Large companies can steal your patented technology, make a great deal of money, ignore you all together, and then have the resources, the vast resources in most cases, to delay your enforcement actions or actually destroy your patents by any means necessary. So the only recourse left for me and others like me is to bring suite to protect my invention – my intellectual property rights. However, the loser pay clause in HR 9 would be a showstopper for me. Bringing a suit against a patent infringer would be too much of a risk for me and my family now and I’ve already used my life savings and family inheritance and hard work for over 15 years plus the untold impact on my family just to develop and maintain my patents. I just do not believe the independent inventor is the problem.

Earlier today 40 economists and law professors wrote to Senate and House Judiciary leaders explaining that the data it that keeps being cited to justify HR 9, otherwise known as the Innovation Act, is “flawed, unreliable and incomplete.” The professors caution Congress to proceed cautiously, particularly given the numerous misleading and flawed studies that “highly exaggerated claims regarding patent trolls.”

The legal costs of the IP system should be measured against the value of intellectual capital in the U.S. economy, estimated in a study by Kevin Hassett and Robert Shapiro to equal between $8.1 trillion to $9.2 trillion… Weakening the US patent system harms economic prospects for middle income earners because it will stifle innovation, discourage patenting, reduce private investments in new technologies protected by patents, slow economic growth, increase unemployment, and harm consumers. The proposed reforms will reduce prospects for economic advancement for middle income earners because they damage entrepreneurship and small business and favor large incumbent firms over inventors and innovators.

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.

The recent public discourse is purposely blurring the line between NPEs and trolls. Research labs and universities are all NPEs. But it would be not only incorrect but also ultimately ethically wrong to classify these entities as trolls. In fact, by taking away their right to technology monetization, we might undercut their ability to further investments in innovation, yet creating a vicious cycle. Ultimately, all companies – practicing or non-practicing – do R&D in areas where they will never bring a product to the market, and act as NPEs in specific market segments. Innovation requires multiple actors, including individual inventors. In times when R&D dollars are scarce, aggregators and patent licensing firms generate more resources to fuel innovation.