Posts Tagged: "Patent Trolls"

It’s very unlikely that obtaining data from just 25 PAEs will provide a representative sampling of PAEs given that the universe of PAEs is largely unknown and probably very diverse… The problem is that in my experience both lawmakers and regulators routinely ignore important statistical limitations of federal studies. I say this with the experience of having worked for over 20 years as a federal government statistician. All too often policymakers use federal studies in ways beyond their intended purposes, with the result that legislation or regulation may be based on a flimsy and potentially inaccurate understanding of the underlying problem or the costs or benefits of proposed government action.

First, the definition of PAE used by the FTC characterizes all PAEs as the same. But in treating patent licensing firms as a homogenous category, the FTC fails to recognize there is a wide spectrum of business models that exist under the licensing umbrella. Second, and related to the first, there are serious methodological questions that undermine any conclusions that could be drawn from the FTC’s data.

The Subcommittee is Chaired by Congressman Darrell Issa (R-CA), who has been an outspoken advocate for the need for more patent reform in order to provide relief from those he believes are abusing the patent litigation system — those sometimes called patent trolls. Indeed, from the start of the Thursday’s hearing, the debate regarding patent infringement at the ITC was couched in the language of the patent troll debate. For example, during his opening statement Congressman Issa rather imperiously stated: “for purposes of my opening statement ‘plaintiff’ and ‘troll’ will be interchangeable.” Issa, himself a patent owner, was forced to litigate against companies that pirated technology covered by his patents. As a patent owner forced to sue at numerous infringers, it would seem that Congressman Issa believes that patent owner and inventor Issa was a patent troll.

When patents were brought up in the hearing, however, it seemed to focus mainly on their effects in the pharmaceutical world. Ramirez’s prepared remarks for the hearing touched on pay for delay in pharmaceutical patent infringement settlements, and she noted that the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 2013 decision in Federal Trade Commission v. Actavis has given the FTC a greater capacity to challenge pay for delay schemes in court. Ramirez also stated that a report on the FTC investigation into patent assertion entities (PAEs) will be made available sometime this spring.

In 1903, Henry Ford was hit with a patent lawsuit while watching his first automobiles get loaded into boxcars. IP issues have plagued the auto industry every since. Today, over 110 years later, automakers still deal with IP threats on a regular basis. The number of lawsuits filed against automakers by patent trolls rose from 17 in 2009 to 107 in 2014. These lawsuits often result in six and seven-figure settlements, and represent a serious drain on the automotive industry. With this spectre hanging over their heads, automakers can’t fully innovate, grow and prosper. It is time for the industry to band together and fight back.

It is pure nonsense to say that opponents of patent reform never offer specifics, cite or discuss textual language of the bills. Utter fiction and complete fantasy. Frankly, Lee’s claims are as comical and insulting as they seem to be uninformed. Only the most disingenuous partisan could suggest that opponents of patent reform do not offer specific explanations citing to textual language of the bills. Indeed, quite the opposite is true. Opponents of patent reform make far more detailed and nuanced arguments. These intellectual, detailed, nuanced arguments have lead those fighting patent reform to lose the linguistic battle time and time again. So not only is what Lee saying false, but it is 180 degrees opposite from reality. So spurious are Lee’s claims that at first glance the article comes across as a piece of patent satire published by The Onion.

Open licenses are private arrangements that work within the current legal regime to encourage innovation, discourage trolls, and help attract top engineering talent. It is a win-win solution for different patenting companies and user’s society. There are several different types of most common open licenses. A License of Transfer Agreement (or shortly, a LOT agreement), that helps to prevent legal suits from non-practicing entities that purchase patents for the sole purpose of enforcing them (called Patent Assertion Entities, or PAEs). Under the LOT Agreement, every company that participates, grants a license to the other participants where the license becomes effective only when patents are transferred to non-participants.

The first meeting this week was in Grundy Center, IA, during which a question about patent reform was asked. Grassley answered that he was trying to stop patent trolls, which he described as a person who buys up patents but never intends to build a product, and then sends threatening letters to small businesses demanding thousands of dollars or they will get sued. Notably, he said that it costs our economy $83B per year.

Patent risk solutions provider RPX yesterday released its 2015 NPE Activity: Highlights report, which offers a first look at trends in patent litigation activity for 2015. According to RPX, NPE litigation activity rebounded in 2015 following what now appears to have been a slowdown in the latter half of 2014. The Eastern District of Texas also continues to dominate as the venue of choice for NPEs, with NPEs suing more defendants there in 2015 than in any year since 2009.

Libertarians believe in property rights and government protection of those rights as one of the few necessary requirements of government. Ownership of property and free markets leads to competitive production and trade of goods, which in turn leads to prosperity for all of society. Intellectual property is property like other forms of property, and so government must protect IP as it protects other forms of property because it too leads to competition and trade and prosperity. Libertarians should encourage a strong patent system and object to any “reforms” that limit intellectual property ownership or introduce more government regulation than is required.

Jay Walker: “Any marketplace that cannot make a deal without filing a lawsuit in federal court is in deep trouble… The results of this mess are sad and unpredictable. There is less incentive to create long-term intellectual property. There is certainly more incentive to infringe if you can figure out what infringement is. There will be more secrecy and there will be less innovation or certainly a very different kind of innovation.”

In their submission to the Washington Post’s series this week on so-called “patent reform” and “patent trolls,” James Bessen and Michael Meurer repeat the same junk science claims we’ve all heard many times before. This narrative is the unfortunate byproduct of unreliable and unscientific studies. This past March, I joined forty economists and law professors in a letter to Congress expressing “deep concerns with the many flawed, unreliable, or incomplete studies about the American patent system” that have been injected into the patent policy debate. Unfortunately, Bessen and Meurer themselves have produced some of this junk science, infected with mistakes that render their conclusions utterly meaningless. For example, they once estimated that litigation by so-called “patent trolls” cost the U.S. economy $29 billion in 2011. This figure has been thoroughly debunked and criticized for the fundamental and methodological flaws, such as using proprietary, secret data collected by a company that has a stake in lobbying for more legislative revisions to patent litigation rules.

”An anecdote is a snapshot, a one-dimensional shard of the big picture. It is lacking in scale, perspective, and data,” authors Steven Levitt and Stephan Dubner write. I was struck by how well the dynamic of anecdote vs. story captures the heated Washington debate over patent legislation we have witnessed in the past few years. The ”patent troll” narrative — fueled by anecdotal tales of mom-and-pop operations snared by fraudulent patent suits and the image of ugly green trolls paraded from the House floor to the White House – became the conventional wisdom on patents almost overnight. The only ”data” offered to support the narrative were compiled from surveys with unscientific methodologies, nonrandomized survey bases and ill-defined notions of a ”troll” that swept in universities, small inventors and anyone who owned a patent but didn’t manufacture, market and distribute the related product.

While hedging risk is a well known and widely accepted investment tactic, there is something rather bizarre about someone who is such a vocal critic doing exactly what they criticize others for doing.

Fears about trade secret trolls are based in mythology, not on fact. If those claiming federal trade secret legislation would lead to trade secret trolls actually understand trade secret law they simply couldn’t possibly come to a conclusion that there is any risk there will be a single trade secret troll, let alone some kind of zombie-like rise. Simply stated the fear is pure fiction. In addition to seeing absolutely no evidence of trade secret trolls on the State level, trade secrets require a relationship or some nexus between the parties to the dispute. You simply cannot commoditize trade secret litigation in the same way patent trolls can and do commoditize patent litigation.