Posts Tagged: "Jaime Siegel"

Are you bullish or bearish on the 2018 patent market? That is the question I asked a panel of experts recently. For the most part, those industry insiders who responded are bullish, although some are cautiously bullish. As you will read below, there seems to be a consensus that activity will be up in terms of deals in 2018, but relief from the downward pressure on prices experienced over the last several years likely will not be forthcoming in 2018.

The clear consensus seems to be that the patent licensing market is not dead, but that the U.S. market is in decline and due to a weakening of patent rights capital will go elsewhere.

Join me on Thursday, January 26, 2017, at 12pm ET for a free webinar discussion that will focus on decision making for dealmakers. This free webinar will approach this material first from the lens of the dealmaker who needs to know that they have all the relevant information necessary to confidently assess value and close a deal. We will ask, and answer, the question about which information can prove to be most useful and why. We will then pivot the discussion to bring in data experts to discuss how they work to find that information and deliver it as actionable intelligence so that good decisions are made with good data.

Why should the costs of the tortfeasing infringer be relevant in determining whether the extracted value from a settlement is fair? The fact that law firms charge a lot of money to defend patent infringement cases, and don’t particularly have any incentive to settle cases early, somehow translates into certain settlements being for nuisance value without any consideration of whether the settlement is a fair value for the rights trampled upon by the infringer? The FTC has quite a lot of explaining to do, because it seems they picked an arbitrary number that is a function of what attorneys ordinarily charge infringing defendants through discovery. I don’t see how that is a function of the value of the innovation, or how it says anything about the merits of the infringement case, the damages case, or the tactics of the patent owner. In fact, it seems as if the $300,000 figure is completely irrelevant.

“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.