Posts Tagged: "patent assertion entities"

If Bill Hewlett and David Packard were just starting in their garage, they might be wise not to waste money acquiring them… An individual inventor, or SME, may defend patented inventions against unauthorized use – by everyone and anyone. However, it is disingenuous to say it is reasonable for them to do so, no matter what Congressional soundbites trumpet. The system is severely biased against these entities to the point of no longer serving them.

NPEs are uniquely positioned to help China by attacking foreign entities to clear the way for Chinese companies by exerting pressure in ways that only NPEs can. Even if Chinese semiconductor companies had the necessary patents and experience to engage their foreign competitors, they would risk retaliation from these foreign parties. NPEs, on the other hand, can unilaterally attack foreigners without fear of retaliatory patent suits. Although there are a few of antitrust issues, I do not believe that NPEs that act in the best interest of China should, or will, be attacked by the NDRC or any other antitrust agency in China.

Activist Supreme Court decisions in the last decade have been principally responsible for these changes, stimulated by aggressive technology company incumbent lobbying. The combination of these decisions has had a far greater effect on the patent system and the economy than the Court originally intended. The U.S. is now in a compulsory licensing regime in which large technology incumbents that control at least 80% of collective market share employ an “efficient infringement” model of ignoring patents and forcing patent holders to enforce patent rights in the courts.

Being targeted by PAEs is nothing new for Apple — but in an anti-trust complaint dated December 20, 2016, Apple finally said enough was enough. Pulling no punches, Apple accused the PAEs of “conspiring with Nokia in a scheme to diffuse and abuse [standard essential patents] and, as the PAEs and Nokia fully intended, monetize those false promises by extracting exorbitant non-FRAND royalties in way Nokia could not”. Using PAEs for direct attacks against Apple would be a smart, albeit sneaky, strategy for Nokia. Since PAEs do not themselves sell any products, there would be little risk of a countersuit from Apple – as well as a general lack of commitment to FRAND licensing terms that spell lower royalties.

To come up with the list below I’ve reviewed all of our patent articles, and have come up with these top 10 patent stories for 2016. They appear in chronological order as they happened throughout the year. Just missing the top 10 cut were the Supreme Court denying cert. in Sequenom and the USPTO being sued for Director Lee declaring a federal holiday. As interesting as those stories may have been, there was far more consequential patent news in 2016. Also missing the cut, but particularly interesting were the rather egregious and insulting response filed in an Office Action in September, and the embarrassing concurring decision by Judge Mayer in Intellectual Ventures. While the latter two were truly train wreck moments, they were fleeting. Judge Mayer has completely marginalized himself on the Federal Circuit with no one embracing his extreme and inaccurate reading of Alice, and that type of albeit cringe-worthy and unprofessional response to an Office Action happens very rarely.

Patents and the innovators who own them do not “cost” the U.S. economy tens of billions of dollars each year. This claim has been repeatedly and thoroughly debunked… But for a moment let’s buy into the fraud. If you actually do the math, which the Internet Association and infringer lobby obviously has never done, you will be amazed as how inconsequential even their grossly inflated estimates of cost are in terms of the scale of the overall U.S. tech economy… If the problems with patents are so awful because they create such a windfall for patent owners doesn’t that just admit that these companies are misleading their own shareholders and perhaps even not maximizing value?

The Supreme Court has run two areas of technology, bio and software, into a legal ditch from which there is no escape…. It should be no surprise then that research and progress in these two fields is decamping and moving off-shore, along with the attendant jobs and economic activity. In essence, the boundless technical future, upon which the US economy has long thrived, is being given to others with whom the US competes… As for the 35 USC 101 conundrums, here’s the fix. DO NOT MODIFY 101! Rather, modify the definitions in 35 USC 100 as follows, and also supply a one paragraph legislative history as to why this definition was changed.

Peter Thiel, Reince Priebus and Jared Kushner are hosting technology industry giants for a policy discussion at Trump Tower on December 14, 2016. Patent reform is likely to be on the agenda as it is one of the issues tech giants (along with big banks and retailers old and new) have invested in heavily for over a decade… Is it possible that the positions of these three key Trump advisors will coalesce around a nuanced patent policy in a Trump Administration along the lines of the recent FTC PAE report, which sought to distinguish innovators and their need to enforce patent rights from bad actions of those who employ abusive litigation tactics?

Although the tech industry is big in America, the industry itself was not big on the idea of a Trump presidency. Trump, however, did have one very vocal supporter from the tech community: German-American entrepreneur, billionaire venture capitalist and PayPal co-founder Peter Thiel… There are inklings that the patent troll narrative might actually have sway with Thiel, despite his Silicon Valley outsider status. An article published in September 2014 by Bloomberg pertaining to a corporate restructuring of Intellectual Ventures (IV), a Patent Assertion Entity (PAE) often portrayed in the media as a patent troll, provides some clues. Thiel is quoted as saying: “I think IV is basically a parasitic tax on the tech industry.”

The Norwegian fairy tale “Three Billy Goats Gruff” was far ahead of its time and the moral of that story has a very relevant, modern application. In short, the story introduces three goats that want to cross a river to eat some luscious grass. To do so, however, the goats must first cross a bridge; under which lives a fearsome troll, who is so territorial that he eats anyone who dares to cross it. By working together, the goats are able to plot against the troll, and ultimately knock him off of the bridge. After knocking the troll off the bridge, the three goats lived happily ever after. So, if these goats can figure out how to get rid of trolls, why can’t sophisticated companies do the same?

What is the best way to assess the potential value or use of a patent portfolio? Before we examine this, it’s important to clarify that a patent only has value in the context of its place in a portfolio and in how the portfolio is used to support the organization’s business strategy. Let’s look at two examples. A Patent Assertion Entity will evaluate patent value based solely on the potential revenue that will come from a licensing program. On the other hand, an operating company typically places a higher value on patents that provide protection. This can be the ability to defend leadership in a profitable market category or the ability to offer protection as a sole-sourced product’s revenue stream.

Anyone who has followed recent developments in the U.S. patent landscape, however, might note something interesting occurring in this particular case. According to the recent patent assertion entity (PAE) report put out by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Network-1’s business activities would seem to put it in the category of what the FTC calls a “litigation PAE.”… Unfortunately for the FTC, Network-1’s license agreement with Polycom is horribly inconsistent with the agency’s findings on the exact business model that Network-1 seems to employ.

The Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) recently released report on patent assertion entities (PAEs) includes a number of key findings made by the agency on the business model of such companies. The FTC identified two different business models employed by PAEs which differ in terms of litigation and licensing activity. Most of the FTC’s recommendations are legislative in scope but the report does include some advice for the country’s judicial system. For example, the report also includes a number of recommendations to deter what the FTC calls “nuisance litigation.”

Basing policy recommendations on no evidence, or at best anecdotal evidence, has great potential to do more harm than good…especially when some of the missing evidence is the other side of the equation – the benefits afforded by patent licensing activity… Instead of seizing the opportunity to survey the patent licensing landscape and shed light on behavior that otherwise is invisible to the public, the FTC squandered the chance and instead developed two arbitrary categories of PAEs, determined that one of these categories was not good, and developed a set of policy recommendations because of “nuisance” litigation. By making recommendations without gathering or using the very facts that were supposed to be the public benefit of this PAE study, the FTC’s report is undoubtedly going to do more harm than good.

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.