Posts Tagged: "Patent Trolls"

I can’t tell you the reason why companies choose to be targets, but I think I have a compelling idea. Those companies that are the ones who complain about patent trolls are also the ones who continually are on Capitol Hill lobbying for patent reform, which in their mind is really only appropriate when it makes issued patents easy to challenge and much more difficult to get. These are the folks who built their corporate empires on patents, growing from small company to mega-giant company while building an enormous intellectual property portfolio heavily dominated with patents that gave them a competitive advantage. Now that they have their market dominant position they really don’t need the patents so much because they have their market power to insulate them from competition, so they want to make it harder for the next individual inventor, start-up tech business or small business to innovate, protect and grow up the corporate food chain.

In a 52 page opinion Judge Means found the case an exceptional case for purposes of awarding attorneys fees under 35 USC 285, found that Rule 11 sanctions were appropriate and fined the attorneys involved and their law firms. The complete lack of investigation by the patent owner, the continued pursuit of infringement claims even after the patent owner’s deposition testimony admitted there was no infringement and persistent frivolous defenses painted this patent troll into a corner. On top of that, Judge Means determined that the attorneys for the patent owner misrepresented facts to the Western District of Pennsylvania in order to get a transfer to the Northern District of Texas. I wonder if this decision was handed down on April Fools Day for a reason? Nevertheless, watch out patent world if Rule 11 starts to grow teeth!

In my conversation with Dr. Michelson he explained to me that while he benefited greatly from the patent system he would have benefited even more if the system worked better. At this point Dr. Michelson “does not have a dog in the fight,” as he explained, because with the exception of a few lingering applications his patent portfolio has been fully acquired and he stands to gain no additional revenues. Nevertheless, Dr. Michelson, the quintessential successful American inventor, would like to see the US patent system improve for the benefit of all independent inventors, the American economy and to promote real job growth. He has some excellent ideas, I agree with his positions on almost every front, and it is with his approval that I put my conversation with him on the record.

In news that has already spread across the Internet like a wildfire, Eastman Kodak Company has sued Apple, Inc., alleging that Apple infringes numerous Kodak patents associated with the iPhone, iPod Touch and various Mac computers. News reports also indicate that Kodak has sued Research in Motion (RIM), maker of the Blackberry. As yet I have not seen a copy…

Back in 2007, a default judgment was entered in a Nevada district court against the well known Internet gambling website Bodog.com for infringement of U.S. Patent 5,564,001. (1st Technology LLV. v. Rational Entertainment LTDA., Rational Poker School Limited, Bodog Entertainment GroupS.A., Bodog.com, and Futurebet Systems Ltd.) As Internet gambling is illegal in the U.S. the folks at Bodog chose not…

Once again patent haters are beating the old worn out drum, or are they?  Several weeks ago Global Findability, Inc. brought a patent infringement lawsuit against Summit Entertainment, LLC and Escape Artists, LLC, in the United States Federal District Court for the District of Columbia.  The complaint alleges that Global Findability is the owner by assignment of US Patent No.…

On Monday, October 26, 2009, Google, Inc. was sued for patent infringement relating to its new Chrome browser by Red Bend, Ltd., an Israeli corporation and Red Bend Software, a Delaware corporation located in Waltham, Massachusetts.  Red Bend, Ltd. is the owner of US Patent No. 6,546,552, and Red Bend Software is the exclusive licensee of the ‘552 patent (hereinafter…

The fact that the FTC is uncomfortable with patent trolls, or non-practicing entities as is now the accepted term, does not mean that the government should launch an investigation to help those tech-giants who can’t figure out how to combat trolling. First, we need to keep in mind that whatever rule is created to apply to the so-called non-practicing entities, will also apply to universities, federal laboratories and research & development companies. So we can use the politically correct term — non-practicing entities — or we can use the term “patent trolls.”

Those familiar with the trials and tribulations surrounding recent attempts to get Congress to enact patent reform know that there were a number of controversial proposals that caused the demise of patent reform efforts in 2008.  One of the more controversial proposals was the proposal that would have significantly limited the amount of patent infringement damages awarded to successful patent…

For those who own or purchase patents and then seek out litigators more interested in using the judicial process to harass plaintiffs, this should mean significant problems lie ahead. No longer is the Eastern District of Texas going to be the warm and friendly place where patent trolls get favorable rulings and force major corporations to litigate in a hostile environment. To be sure, the patent troll problem has not been solved, and cases will continue to be brought, but they will need to be brought in places where the dispute really ought to be litigated.

The reason for what appears to be a strange assortment of collaborators is the fact that tech giants like Google, Microsoft, Cisco, Apple and others are facing what they characterize as a huge patent troll problem, and this so-called patent troll problem comes disproportionately from business method patents and software patents. So it is easy to see why the banks and tech giants have formed an alliance to go after these types of patents that impact technology, communication and software.

Merry Christmas and Happy New Year Google, Microsoft and Apple! On Monday, December 23, 2008, Cygnus Systems, Inc., sometimes referred to on the web as Troll Systems, sued three of the largest patent troll targets there are; namely the aforementioned Google, Apple and Microsoft. Perhaps you tech giants might want to move to the top of your 2009 resolutions the idea of getting a clue and developing a strategy to deal with patent trolls because whatever it is that you think you are doing is failing miserably and only wasting shareholder resources, which in these economic times ought to be practically treasonous.

I do still believe that reexaminations are the way to go if companies are really interested in stopping patent trolls, and perhaps moving forward there will be a merger between the prior art found by Article One and attempts to get the Patent Office to review previously granted patents. In any event, according to USPTO statistics, 9.2% of requests for ex parte reexamination result in all claims being canceled and 59% of the time certificates issue with at least some claims being changed. Even more dramatic, 74% of requests for inter partes reexamination result in all claims being canceled and 14% of the time certificates issue with at least some claims being changed. The answer to dealing with patent trolls is to go after them with reexaminations, not to try and build a useless defensive patent portfolio.

The Wall Street Journal is reporting today that RPX Corp will take on patent trolls. The trouble is that what RPX wants to do is raise money to acquire patents for defensive purposes. This is hardly something new, and it not something that those in the industry will tell you is calculated to succeed. You see, there just isn’t enough money to buy up all the relevant patents that patent trolls could get their hands on to use to sue.