Posts Tagged: "npe"

The greatest long-term threat to the U.S. patent system does not come from its professional opponents – those large businesses and their political allies who stand to profit from enfeebled patent rights. A deeper harm is caused by unscrupulous patent trolls who use extortionist “demand letters” to victimize small businesses. Yet even as damage caused by demand letters spreads, most legitimate patent licensors whose businesses depend upon continued legislative and public trust stand idly by, doing little or nothing to address it. Well-insulated within the patent industry’s cozy professional bubble, we are, in effect, fiddling like a modern-day Nero while innovation’s Rome burns.

Acknowledging that many of the problems facing the licensing industry was brought about due to bad actors dominating the discussion, Shaer explained that the absence of legitimate patent owners who license real technologies from the debate has also contributed. Rather than self regulating the industry, legitimate patent owners and licensing entities have stayed in the background, which continues to contribute to the negative public perception of the patent system. “We are the first licensing company, to our knowledge, to publicly campaign against patent troll demand letters that we believe are undermining public confidence in the patent system,” Shaer explained.

Jane Muir, AUTM President: “[U]niversities are not the next patent troll because at the end of the day, university tech transfer offices were put into place to ensure that the new discoveries that happen in the research laboratories ultimately get out into the marketplace by way of product and services that improve the human condition. The big difference is with patent trolls. They’re not interested in commercializing discoveries. They’re interested in using those patents to sue legitimate companies who do want to move those products into the market. From the commercialization standpoint that really is the fundamental difference. Patent trolls have no real interest in commercializing. Their interest is in litigating.”

The Federal Trade Commission testified on consumer protection issues involving patent demand letters, patent assertion entities (PAEs), and proposed legislation to prohibit deceptive patent demand letters. Delivering testimony before the House Subcommittee on Commerce, Manufacturing, and Trade of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, Lois Greisman, Associate Director of the FTC’s Division of Marketing Practices at the Federal Trade Commission, provided lawmakers with comments on a draft bill regarding deceptive patent demand letters, and recognized that demand letters raise broader issues about patents and the U.S. patent system.

FTC says that it considered and implemented many of these suggestions it did receive in order to sharpen the focus of the study and reduce its likely burden on study respondents. Frankly, I see little evidence that the burden on the responding PAEs has been reduced to anything that approximates a reasonable level. The information that the FTC will seek from 25 different PAEs is extraordinarily detailed and it will be onerous to produce, if it can even be produced… The questions seek detailed information about each patent owned by the PAE. In one case a seemingly simple question asks the PAE to for every patent they own identify the patent’s “priority date,” which is a term not defined in the Notice. Asking this question in and of itself presents an objectionable burden in my opinion.

The above-enumerated problems of the current patent system are real and barriers to further innovation and job creation. But the solutions do not require a comprehensive definition of a troll to fix the patent system. Lady Justice is blindfolded for a purpose. Justice in the US should be meted out objectively regardless of identity. So too in the instant situation. It is not the identity of the actor that needs to be evaluated, but the character of the action. We need to assure that frivolous, predatory actions are penalized and prevent the abusive tactics used by many that harm our innovative culture.

In a magazine with the name Fortune—devoted to capitalism and free markets—it is surprising to see an article that would promote closed markets and limited ownership of property within its pages. I doubt Fortune would support laws restricting real estate ownership to those who build on the land and live on it. I doubt Fortune would consider supermarkets to be “grocery trolls” because they sell goods from others that the stores never actually produce. It is time to reconsider these foolish restrictions on intellectual property ownership and return to treating intellectual property as we do all other property.

Patent licensing, in fact, was the principal means by which new inventions were commercialized during the decades before in-house corporate R&D departments emerged in the early 20th century. Publications such as Scientific American were founded expressly to facilitate the trade in patents, and it regularly featured descriptions of new and interesting patents, which commercial enterprises then licensed or purchased to use in their product development efforts. American Bell Telephone’s new product pipeline, for example, operated like most others at the time. According to its 1894 annual report, the company’s R&D department licensed 73 patents from outside inventors, while developing only 12 from its own employees.

Congress is on the cusp of passing legislation that is said to be designed to control the so-called “patent troll.” Of course, as belatedly recognized by the person who came up with the moniker “troll” in 1993, Peter Detkin (former Assistant General Counsel at Intel at the time), the word “troll” is often in the eye of the beholder. Indeed nearly every litigator will tell you that term “troll” is commonly used against any opponent in a patent litigation suit, much as Arthur R. Miller asserted that “a frivolous lawsuit is any case brought against your client, and litigation abuse is anything the opposing lawyer is doing.” Miller, Simplified Pleading, Meaningful Days in Court and Trial on the Merits: Reflections on the Deformation of Federal Practice, 88 NYU Law Rev. 286, 302 (2013).