Earlier today at a confirmation hearing held by the Senate Judiciary Committee Senator Charles Grassley (R-IO) stated that the nominees for USPTO Director (Michelle Lee) and Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator (Daniel Marti) would not be confirmed during this Congress. Grassley also explained that with new members of the Committee it would only be fair to give those new members an opportunity to ask questions of the nominees. Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) inquired whether Grassley would allow the nominations to move early in January, to which Grassley responded that he thought that was a reasonable request.
As Senator Grassley moved into his questions he asked both Daniel Marti and Michelle Lee whether patent trolls are a problem and whether they would work with the Senate, if confirmed, on new legislation to address any problems. Lee said that she does think there is a continuing problem with abusive patent litigation, further saying “there can and should be further legislation” to address patent trolls. Shortly after this answer was given, Senator Mazie Hirono (D-HI) during her question and answer period pointed out that “one person’s patent troll is another person trying to protect his or her patent.”
The issue of patent reform and patent trolls would go on to dominate the confirmation hearing. At one point during his questioning of Lee, Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) explained that patent reform has been a real eye opener for him. While working on the America Invents Act (AIA) he explained that he in good faith tried to take the considerations of his constituents into consideration, offering amendments to address their concerns. Then after he voted for the bill he was inundated with calls and e-mails about why he voted for that “bad bill.” Durbin explained that he has since become determined to be far more proactive because this is such an important issue. He has been holding meetings and talking to constituents and everyone is telling him that it is premature to engage in additional patent reform and the Congress should slow down.
Yesterday the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska entered an order in Activision TV, Inc. v. Bruning (Civil Action No. 8:13-cv-00215), ordering outgoing Nebraska Attorney General Jon Bruning to pay $325,000 for attorneys fees and costs to ActiveLight, Inc. (formerly Activision and referred to as “plaintiff”) and to pay another $400,000 in attorneys fees and costs to MPHJ Technology Investments, who had intervened in the matter. Making this sanction even more painful is the fact that the grand total of $725,000 amounts to almost 10% of the 2014 budget for the Attorney General’s Office.
Bruning had demanded that the attorneys for ActiveLight and MPHJ stop engaging in patent enforcement activities in the State of Nebraska, a gross overreach of his authority as a State Attorney General and done with little or no investigation that would suggest any violation of State law. The order signed by United States District Judge Joseph F. Bataillon approved a Joint Motion for Entry of Judgment Awarding Attorneys Fees filed by MPHJ, ActiveLight and the State of Nebraska.
The genesis of the dispute is grounded in what otherwise should have been a patent infringement matter where the State of Nebraska, like all States, has no authority to act. The grievance that lead to ActiveLight and MPHJ suing the Nebraska Attorney General relates to Bruning’s issuance of a cease and desist order against counsel for ActiveLight (then Activision) preventing the law firm of Farney Daniels from engaging in any patent enforcement activity within the State of Nebraska on behalf of clients of the firm. Because counsel for ActiveLight also represent MPHJ Technologies the cease and desist order that barred ActiveLight’s attorneys from engaging in any patent enforcement activity in Nebraska also significantly impacted MPHJ Technologies.
As the Managing Principal of a patent advisory firm that services nearly every segment of the patent industry, I am often asked what keeps me awake at night. Obviously, for anyone engaged in the patent business as of late, there is no shortage of material. But with a newly minted Congress expected to get moving on patent reform, there is one clear winner: presumptive fee shifting.
The most recent patent reform bill to pass the House, which is now expected to receive Senate backing as well, is the Goodlatte Innovation Act (H.R. 3309). Included within the various provisions of H.R. 3309 is the presumption of fee shifting for the losing party in a patent case. Put simply, this means the loser in a patent case pays the winning side’s attorney fees. In the context of a patent case, such costs often total in the millions.
But as someone who operates at the center of the patent market, and is certainly sympathetic to the dangers of frivolous patent litigation, I can only hope that if additional patent reform does pass, the presumptive fee shifting provisions are nowhere to be seen. Although seen by those unfamiliar with the nuances of patents as a way to curtail abuses in the patent system, a presumptive fee shifting provision is not only unnecessary, but also likely to cause of host of unintended consequences.
The settlement with MPHJ is the first time the FTC has taken action using its consumer protection authority against a patent assertion entity (PAE). PAEs are companies that obtain patent rights and try to generate revenue by licensing to or litigating against those who are or may be using patented technology.
“Patents can promote innovation, but a patent is not a license to engage in deception,” said Jessica Rich, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “Small businesses and other consumers have the right to expect truthful communications from those who market patent rights.”
The passage of the America Invents Act (AIA) in 2011 was touted as an important moment for modernizing patent laws and making it easier for innovators to innovate. Of course, nothing could have been further from the truth. The AIA further weakened patent rights, which is exactly what the large tech companies wanted. Far more is prior art under the AIA than under the previous regime, the grace period that remains is so infinitesimally narrow that it would be malpractice to suggest the AIA ushered in anything other than an absolute novelty system, there are a trio of new post grant procedures aimed at making it easier to strip patent rights away from owners, and several categories of invention were explicitly made unpatentable. The AIA was hardly the panacea that it was sold to be.
But legislative changes to the patent system are not the most significant blows suffered by the innovators who require strong patents in order to obtain financing and have any kind of chance against the large corporations that would love nothing more than to take their inventions without remuneration. The Courts are where the most dramatic changes to patent law have come, starting back at least as early as 2005 when the Supreme Court rendered its decision in eBay v. MercExchange. That ill-considered decision turned a patent, which had been an exclusive right, into some kind of a ghostly remnant of its former self. Thanks the eBay it has been extremely difficult, if not impossible, to obtain an injunction even after proving infringement and withstanding all invalidity challenges. The irony is that strong patents that have been infringed are really no longer capable of supporting exclusive rights. See The Impact of eBay v. MercExchange. What good is a patent without an injunction against an infringer?
EDITORIAL NOTE: Conversant IP has set up a website called Stand Up to the Demand, which helps those being sued for patent infringement to distinguish between a bogus claim of patent infringement and a legitimate licensing inquiry from a patent owner.
One thing you can say about patent trolls: They sure are cowboys! In fact, one of the biggest patent trolls of all time is a cowboy hat-wearing Texas lawyer by the name of Jay Mac Rust.
In 2012, Mr. Rust bought five patents from an inventor named Laurence Klein for exactly $1. He then set up 101 separate limited liability companies (LLCs), each with bizarre six letter names like IsaMai, BriPol, and HarNol. No one but Mr. Rust knows what those acronyms mean. But thousands of Mom and Pop small businesses — 16,465 to be exact — soon found out that they translate as “trouble.” Each of these businesses received a “demand letter” from one of Rust’s shell companies accusing them of patent infringement and demanding roughly $1,000 per employee if they wanted to avoid a minimum six-figure (and possibly seven-figure) lawsuit in U.S. federal court.
Nero and the burning of Rome by M. de Lipman, circa 1897.
Adam Carolla, one of the most popular podcasters in the U.S., is sued by a patent troll. The story goes viral. Across the country, state Attorneys General are using consumer protection laws to guard their small businesses from the predacious patent trolls. And here’s something previously unthinkable: the President of the United States, in the 2014 State of the Union address (“It’s the country’s most valuable political real estate,” noted one D.C. veteran), urged Congress to “pass a patent reform bill that allows our businesses to stay focused on innovation, not costly and needless litigation.”
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. This practice, we believe, is wrecking public confidence in the U.S. patent system – and by extension, profoundly weakening the heretofore bedrock belief in the great economic benefits conferred by patent-protected inventions.
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.
A recently published survey by The Atlantic asked a panel of 50 Silicon Valley insiders a variety of questions ranging from what is the most exciting tech start-up at the moment to which tech company is most overvalued. One question in particular was quite intriguing: What is the biggest barrier to innovation in the United States? You might be surprised by the answer.
According to this poll the biggest barriers to innovation in the United States are, in order:
Government regulation/bureaucracy 20%
Immigration policies 16%
Talent shortage 10%
Lack of diversity among tech executives 10%
The need for patent reform 8%
Lack of investment 6%
This survey shows what those in the industry have long known — patent trolls and the need for patent reform are NOT the biggest problems facing the high tech industry in the United States. In fact, 92% of respondents feel that there are other things that are more concerning and a bigger barrier to innovation. But how can this be? The public has been consistently fed the line that patents stifle innovation. How can something that stifles innovation not be the biggest concern, particularly when so many of the tech giants from Silicon Valley have for years blamed the patent system for all their woes? The simple answer is that patents do NOT stifle innovation, but rather patents foster innovation. Those who are intimately familiar with the industry know patents promote innovation regardless of the lies promoted to advance patent reform, vilify innovators and lay the blame for everything at the feet of patent trolls. See also Promoting Innovation: The Economics of Incentives.
One of the real problems with the debate over patent litigation abuse is that it hasn’t focused on litigation abuse at all. Instead, the debate has focused on attempts to characterize patent owners with pejorative labels, such as calling anyone who has the audacity to seek to enforce their rights a “patent troll.” Unfortunately, the term “patent troll” has evolved to mean “anyone who sues me alleging patent infringement.” This has lead the media, the public and Members of Congress to incorrectly believe that there is a “patent troll problem,” which has influenced decision-makers all the way from Capitol Hill to the United States Supreme Court, who increasingly seems to be deciding patent cases with one eye firmly on what is a completely non-existent problem.
You have probably heard the narrative start something like this: there is an explosion of patent litigation. The objective reality, however, is that there has not been an explosion of patent litigation. The Government Accountability Office, after an exhaustive review of patent litigation, concluded that there was no patent litigation crisis. The same GAO report also found that 80% of the patent lawsuits filed are brought by operating companies suing other operating companies. Thus, those who profess there to be rampant problems associated with patent trolls and non-practicing entities suing for patent infringement are simply telling a tale that the factual data doesn’t support.
More recently Lex Machina has come forward with some eye opening statistics as well. A recent report from Lex Machina concludes: “Plaintiffs filed 329 new federal patent cases in September 2014, a 40% decrease from the 549 cases filed in September 2013.” Indeed, if you dive deeper into the 2013 and 2014 statistics you see that through the first nine months of 2013 there were 4,548 patent infringement lawsuits filed, but during the first nine months of 2014 there were only 3,887 patent infringement lawsuits filed, which represents a 15% reduction in patent litigation in 2014 compared with 2013. Furthermore, in 7 of the 9 months during 2014 there have been fewer patent infringement lawsuits filed during 2014 than during 2013. The statistics and independent GAO report just do not support a narrative that proclaims there to be a run away problem with patent litigation run amok.
Phil Shaer (right) with law school friend Mervyn Valadares, who was also in attendance at AIPF annual meeting in Washington, DC.
Conversant IP is a patent owner that licenses their portfolio to others. They were the first such licensing company to take on the issue of ethical patent licensing. In fact, in November 2013, Conversant IP issued a groundbreaking set of guidelines for ethical patent licensing practices, in an attempt to initiate a discussion within the industry and to distinguish the many licensing entities that are not abusers of the patent or litigation systems. Then in July 2014, the company became the first licensing entities to launch a public awareness campaign.
“Sending ill-founded patent demand letters may be legal, but it’s just plain wrong,” said John Lindgren, President and CEO of Conversant said in July 2014. “This practice is hurting small business owners financially. It’s giving legitimate patent licensing a bad name. And it’s seriously undermining the public’s belief in the U.S. patent system and the value of patents as stimulants to innovation and economic growth.”
What brings this issue back to the pages of IPWatchdog is a recent presentation by Phil Shaer, Senior Vice-President and Chief Licensing Officer of Conversant IP, which occurred on Monday, September 29, 2014. Shaer was a featured speaker at the annual meeting of the Association of Intellectual Property Firms (AIPF), which was held at the Washington Plaza Hotel in downtown Washington, D.C. During his presentation he explained that Conversant IP is wading into the patent troll debate because it is necessary for them, and other licensing companies, to “stand up to the bad practices that are damaging the industry.”