Baseball is a good analogy for politics, which is why political talk shows have names like “Hard Ball.” A defining moment for any hitter is realizing that a 95 mile an hour fastball has just been deliberately thrown at your head. Pitchers throw the “beanball” is to see if a batter has the courage to play the game knowing that the risk of serious injury is literally an inch away. As former Dodger pitcher Sandy Koufax said: “Pitching is the art of instilling fear.”
A similar challenge is delivered to those who get in the way of well-funded lobbyist’s campaigns. An equivalent of the beanball is the attack article in the Washington Post, the paper of record for the political class. So it should not be surprising that as soon as universities announced that they could not support the House patent reform bill in its current form that a beanball was immediately headed their way.
“The pitcher has to find out if the hitter is timid. And if the hitter is timid, he has to remind the hitter that he’s timid” said Don Drysdale, a pitcher who built a career successfully intimidating batters. In baseball and politics the message behind the pitch is the same: “Kid, are you sure you want to take me on?”
2013 turned out to be a very big year for IP, and especially patents, and the year took a course that few would have predicted this time last year. At that time, the senior team at the PTO was primarily focused on the imminent departure of our then-boss, David Kappos, and the end of what had clearly been an extraordinarily active and successful tenure. The AIA had been almost entirely implemented, the new Patent Trial and Appeal Board was up and running, and most of us expected 2013 to be focused on implementation and execution of the AIA and the other initiatives that had been set in motion under Director Kappos.
But things turned out rather differently. Nobody would have predicted a year ago that President Obama would personally call for additional patent reform legislation to curb patent troll litigation. Or that a comprehensive patent litigation reform bill would speed through the House by a lopsided margin and be heading to Senate consideration with a full head of steam. Nobody also would have predicted that the USPTO would also fall victim to sequestration and once again be denied full access to its fees so shortly after the passage of the AIA, which held forth the promise of full access to fees. And few would have predicted that the PTO would be without stable political leadership since Dave Kappos left eleven months ago. Or that a new Chief of Staff and a new Deputy and Acting Director would be named before a new Director was nominated. This unusual and lengthy transition period has caused understandable concern in the IP community, but we should all be pleased that a new Acting Director has been named and will take the reins on an acting basis in just two weeks.
In the American legal system, the popular notion is that the courts should be equitable and fair to all parties, both plaintiffs and defendants, regardless of the issue at stake. This is reflected in our system’s handling of lawsuit legal fees, which typically keeps the costs of engaging in litigation with the party who contracted those costs during the legal process. Only in the most special of circumstances does the losing litigant have to pay the attorneys fees of the prevailing party in the United States. This has long been believed to be the best way to make sure that even those of modest means have meaningful access to seek redress in Court for wrongs suffered.
The American concept that each party should ordinarily pay for legal representation regardless of whether they win or lose has developed in sharp and direct contrast to legal fee rules in other countries. The two contrasting regimes are named for the two countries that most clearly represent these differing views: the United States and England. In recent days, the United States Congress, urged on by certain high-tech corporations, has considered legislation that would create new rules regarding fee shifting for patent lawsuits as a way to discourage so-called “patent trolls” from engaging in litigation. Unfortunately, the legislative proposals currently being considered are not at all narrowly tailored to address the patent troll problem, even assuming there is a patent troll problem, which the objectively available data calls into question in the first place.
Certainly, there is abusive litigation that occurs in the patent world. This abusive litigation does not, however, signal a problem with the patent system. Rather, the abusive litigation tactics leverage judicial inefficiencies to force litigants into paying exceptionally paltry sums rather than pay to fight a patent litigation that on average could cost $2 million to see through to the end. Those sending demand letters for $500 or $1,000 to small entities should be stopped. Those that sue large entities without care of whether there is infringement and settle for $25,000 or $35,000 should be stopped.
What is lacking from the debate over “patent trolls” is the “other side” of the story. In other words- who is benefiting from large multinational high tech companies being forced to deal with claims of infringement against them?
The major beneficiaries are not the patent trolls- but the thousands of single patent owners and small high tech start ups who for the first time ever-are able to monetize the enormous investments in time, money and ingenuity that they have made in their inventions.
The fact is- today, small patent owner and small tech start ups have real options to liquidate their intellectual property assets that they didn’t have before Intellectual Ventures and Acacia Research Group entered the market in the mid-2000s. If patent trolls sue big companies- then the owners of these patents were able to liquidate their investments. When the multinationals have to worry about these entities suing them it is good for the owners of the patents.
Patent trolls are not bad for them. That’s for sure.
The Federal Trade Commission has extended the deadline for public comments on its proposed study of patent assertion entities (PAEs), which it announced on September 27. To provide additional time for interested parties to submit comments on the proposed study, the deadline has been extended throughDecember 16, 2013. The Commission will not consider requests for further extension. Comments can be submitted electronically.
PAEs are firms with a business model based primarily on buying patents and then attempting to generate revenue by asserting the intellectual property against persons who are already practicing the patented technologies. The FTC is conducting the study in order to further one of the agency’s key missions — to examine cutting-edge competition and consumer protection topics that may have a significant effect on the U.S. economy.
In testimony presented to a U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary subcommittee the Federal Trade Commission described its ongoing efforts to protect competition and consumers in many important sectors of the economy, including health care, pharmaceuticals, and technology.
Testifying on behalf of the FTC before the Subcommittee on Regulatory Reform, Commercial and Antitrust Laws, Chairwoman Edith Ramirez said that, “In an effort to be most effective with limited resources, we pay particular attention to sectors where our action will provide the greatest benefit to the largest number of consumers. Chief among those are health care and the technology sector.”
The testimony outlines the FTC’s critical work promoting competition in health care markets, noting that health care consolidation can threaten to undermine efforts to control rising health care costs. Examples of FTC actions to prevent anticompetitive health care mergers include litigation involving proposed hospital mergers that threaten higher prices and lower quality of care, as well as divestitures in pharmaceutical mergers to preserve competition and maintain competitive pricing for needed medications.
This paper proposes amending 35 U.S.C. 271 Infringement of Patent with elements drawn from § 2-403 of UCC Article 2, Sale of Goods, and with elements of the Patent Exhaustion Doctrine. This amendment, if enacted, would prevent patent trolls from proceeding against Bona Fide Purchasers for Value with respect to certain specific infringements, in order to strengthen consumer confidence in the marketplace, by ensuring that vendors can deliver the products that they sell, free of threats of patent infringement litigation against such innocent buyers.
In their article entitled The Private and Social Costs of Patent Trolls, James Bessen, Jennifer Ford, and Michael Meurer present a study on patent litigation involving Non Practicing Entities (NPEs), which they define as firms that do not produce goods but rather acquire patents in order to license them to others. Bessen et al.’s conclusions are startling. The loss to defendants involved in NPE patent suits during the last four years “exceeds $83 billion per year, over a quarter of U.S. industrial R&D spending per annum;” and NPE patent litigation constitutes a “very large disincentive to innovation.” Bessen et al.’s article was prominently featured on the cover of the Winter 2011-2012 issue of Regulation magazine with a cover illustration of oversized humanoids with visible malign intent, armed with clubs, holding up innocent travelers for payment at a bridge, wherein the cover is titled “Patent Trolls – How NPEs harm innovation.”
In my full article “Questionable science will misguide patent policy,” I expose fundamental flaws in the methods that Bessen et al. apply in their studies and explain why their fantastic cost estimates should be dismissed as extremely biased and unreliable, and why their conclusions should be discarded as misleading for patent policy. An abridged version follows.
Bessen et al.’s stock return event studies on patent litigation
Bessen et al.’s thesis is predicated on “event studies” of lawsuit filings—what happens to an alleged infringer’s stock price around the filing of a patent infringement lawsuit, after taking into account general market trends and random fluctuations of the individual stock. Without providing any proof, these authors argue that during these “events,” stock value declines that are otherwise unaccounted for by estimated market trends (called “Abnormal Return”), reflect “the costs of lost business, management distraction and diversion of productive resources that might result from the lawsuit, possible payments needed to settle the suit, and the reduction in expectations of profits from future opportunities that are forestalled or foreclosed because of the suit.”
How to Write a Patent Application is a must own for patent attorneys, patent agents and law students alike. A crucial hands-on resource that walks you through every aspect of preparing and filing a patent application, from working with an inventor to patent searches, preparing the patent application, drafting claims and more.
Without hesitation I recommend One Simple Idea and think it should be required reading for any motivated inventor. There is so much to like about the book and so much that I think author Stephen Key nails dead on accurate. The book is educational, information and inspirational. For the $14 cover price it is essential reading.
Typically blog roll links are not helpful to a website's rank. To give some additional "link love" to those we think you might be interested in reading we have moved our blog roll and links to a dedicated page. Go to IPWatchdog Blog Roll & Links.