Posts Tagged: "Patent Trolls"

Principe and Rudroff unfortunately regurgitate much of the misguided dialogue, which has done nothing to serve this country except to decimate its patent system in recent years. In the view of the authors, patent trolls, or patent assertion entities (PAEs) (which the authors note is the less pejorative term), provide no market value and often enforce software or business method patents which have questionable validity. Of course, it is worth noting that in its 2016 study on PAEs, the Obama Federal Trade Commission called the term “patent troll” both unhelpful and prejudicial, and also specifically recognized that PAEs can and do play a valuable role in the market. So the conclusions of Principe and Rudroff are not supported by even an FTC study commissioned for the purpose of condemning patent trolls. 

Google’s efforts to decimate the U.S. patent system to protect its own interests is a fact of life that is becoming more clear day by day. The latest scathing report, published in May by the watchdog organization Campaign for Accountability, highlights Google’s unscrupulous activities in supporting the efforts of organizations like Engine Advocacy and the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), organizations portraying themselves as advocates for smaller entities but instead attempt to influence the political debate on Google’s behalf in many areas, including patent reform.

U.S. patent policy has collapsed at the hands of a Supreme Court preoccupied with a boogeyman not present in a single dispute they were asked to adjudicate. This means this Supreme Court has allowed a carefully crafted PR narrative to influence virtually every patent decision over the last 12 years when many in the industry believe the patent troll nothing to be nothing more than an opportunistic phantom created by a relatively small number of companies hell-bent on weakening patents to the point where they are simply not enforceable… But today we have come full circle. The United States increasingly forbids patents on cutting edge biotechnology, medical, software, analytics, big data mining, artificial intelligence and other innovations. For this we have only the Supreme Court to thank.

Congresswoman Lofgren seems quick to forget that she was one of the original co-sponsors of the Innovation Act when it was introduced into the House back in February 2015. Had the Innovation Act passed, it would have required patents challenged in IPR proceedings to be construed in the exact same manner that a district court would have required in a civil action to invalidate the patent. So, it seems Lofgren was for the Phillips standard and eliminating BRI before she was against it.

This damaging narrative, which portrays inventors in an incredibly disrespectful way, has been allowed to infect the highest levels of our nation’s government… Aside from the specific classes being targeted by these different monikers, it would seem that the use of the term “patent troll” is not much different than the use of the terms “superpredators” or “deplorables.” Each of them is a gross over-generalization of groups of people that have turned out to be incredibly demeaning and evidence a great misunderstanding of certain political realities. Many Americans are right to be outraged over the long-term effects of harsh law enforcement policies on underprivileged communities. Will they show any similar outrage over the steep decline of the U.S. patent system and our nation’s innovation economy directly attributable to the use of the “patent troll” narrative?

The strategy also includes legislative changes to ensure ethical standards among patent and trademark agents and to “remove barriers to innovation, particularly any loopholes that allow those seeking to use IP in bad faith to stall innovation for their own gain.” And just who are these loophole-seeking bad faith actors seeking to bring the innovation economy of Canada to a grinding halt? Well, patent trolls, of course… It’s easy to point to the boogeyman of the patent troll but, in reality, concerns regarding such bad-faith actors tend to be overblown and have had the effect of nearly destroying the U.S. patent system in recent years. That decline has occurred even as the Federal Trade Commission has publicly said that the use of the term “patent troll” is prejudicial.

In a breathtakingly disingenuous passage from the decision, Judge Tucker finds that not all definitions of patent trolls are necessarily pejorative. Are we really to believe Judge Tucker thinks the term “patent troll” is a loving and endearing term spoken with great admiration for inventors who spend tremendous amounts of time, money and energy seeking patents on their inventions? The reality is the term patent troll has been intentionally used in a derisive manner to belittle patent owners and manipulate decision makers on every level for over a decade. Large corporate entities that steal patent property rather than pay fair and reasonable rates to use the property have colluded to convince the public, press, Judiciary and Congress that inventors and patents are evil with a false narrative about patent owners. They use false “facts” that they constantly repeat, but which have been debunked over and over again.

In 1790, the U.S. patent laws were first enacted and individuals could obtain a patent under the new federal government. For about a century beforehand, British citizens in the various parts of the American colonies could obtain patents for that region, and Britain and other European countries had patent laws as well. But the new American patent system was different: it was democratized in that anyone could participate, without the need for consent from the Crown. The origins of patent laws date back to the Fifteenth Century when Florentine regents sought to attract and keep innovators and their inventions. Elizabeth I was a keen ruler in passing various patent laws to encourage foreigners with ideas and inventions to relocate to Britain, as well as encourage domestic innovation.

One of the questions that gets asked this time of year, when the world is busy flipping the calendar from one year to the next, is “What are you looking forward to in the new year?” For patent owners operating in the U.S., however, it may be better to ask, “What are you looking ahead to in 2018?” Looking forward would seem to denote a sense of optimism and such optimism has been in short supply among those in the tech space who don’t have the deep wallets to withstand the costs of pursuing infringers, including those costs incurred by the efficient infringer cartel’s use of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

Somewhere near the end of 2011, I responded to an ad that was left on Craigslist. A website called IPWatchdog.com was looking for a writer to contribute content on Apple’s patenting activities… Over the past five years, I’ve learned a lot about what it means to be an inventor in today’s patent system. I’ve learned that, unless you have the deep wallets to create advocacy groups which beat the drums for further patent reforms in service to the efficient infringer lobby, you tend to get railroaded by the system… In short, I’ve learned that the United States of today is not the same country where the famed garage inventor can become a business success thanks to hard work and ingenuity. Today, the true beneficiaries of innovation seem to be those well-entrenched interests who can copy without great fear of reprisal, leaving the actual inventors without any true ability to commercialize and profit from their intellectual property.

Unfortunately, there’s every indication that today’s event at Brookings will feature more of the same kind of misguided rhetoric on perceived issues with the patent system which don’t truly exist. The evidence for this starts with the moderator for the day’s final roundtable discussion, titled Realigning Incentives to Increase Patent Quality. The moderator for this discussion will be Tim Lee, senior reporter of tech policy for Ars Technica. Lee has written in the past on the effects of “ridiculous patent litigation” and has given space to viewpoints which want to limit patentability in certain sectors, such as in business methods. Lee has also been very critical of appellate court decisions in patent cases in recent years to the point that assertions he’s made on case law regarding the patentability of software inventions border on the ridiculously absurd. This individual, who has a clearly anti-patent viewpoint, will be controlling the discussion during the final panel roundtable on patent policy.

The world of intellectual property law has been abuzz in recent months leading up to oral arguments in front of the U.S. Supreme Court in Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, a case which will determine whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) operates in violation of both Article III of the U.S. Constitution and…

RPost has been unfairly described as a patent troll. In fact, RPost is a privately held cybersecurity technology company that has been in operation since 2000. For at least the past two years, RPost has been listed as representative of vendors in Gartner’s Market Guide for Electronic Signature… Microsoft promotes RPost on its partner website for offering “an Outlook add-in that puts advanced email capabilities in the hands of any Microsoft Outlook or Office 365 user.” Its RMail product was even favorably reviewed and recommended by the American Bar Association.

Of the 1,582 patents with a final written decision, 1,343 were found to have defects by the PTAB. That is an 85% defect rate. Only 239 patents were affirmed to be fully compliant with the statutes by the PTAB. Yet the Office of Patent Quality Assurance (OPQA) claims a 6-8% defect rate… 263 patents were found valid in full and fair trials in a court of law and also tried in the shortcut infringer-biased PTAB. Only 63 of them got the same results in both venues. The other 200 the PTAB came to a different conclusion. If the courts are correct then the PTAB is wrong 76% of the time.

Fortune tech writer Jeff John Roberts, who penned this particular article, regurgitates Cloudflare’s claims that Blackbird “may be engaging in illegal fee-splitting arrangements with patent owners” simply because it is run by people who have experience as patent litigators. It’s true that Blackbird is staffed with many lawyers coming from leading firms in patent law like Fish & Richardson and Kirkland & Ellis, but Blackbird is asserting the patents on their own behalf. Although the patent owner gets a share of the revenues from patent assertion, there is nothing unethical about the arrangement. Because Blackbird is not a law firm and does not receive fees, there are no fees to split. But don’t tell that to the editorial staff at Fortune. They apparently don’t want something like fact to get in the way of a fake, juicy patent troll narrative that makes patent owners look like villains.