Patent Trolls in the News

Patent Trolls in the News

This blog post will outline the relationship between corporations and patents, specifically how they are being challenged and how they are overcoming issues with patents.

Patent infringement lawsuits filed by non-practicing entities, also known as patent trolls, continue to rise in the U.S. For example, in 2013, AT&T was sued for patent infringement by so-called patent trolls a startling 54 times -- more than once a week, according to recent statistics.

Fortune recently published the 2013 list of top 10 patent troll targets, writes that the top patent litigation related companies include “AT&T, fighting 70 active cases as of the publication date. Next in line is Google, which was hit with 43 suits last year; Verizon, 42; Apple, 41; Samsung and Amazon, which were hit with 39 each; Dell and Sony, hit with 34 each; Huawei, hit with 32; Blackberry, hit with 31.”

The article in Howstuffworks writes that “In response to the patent troll threat, large companies have purchased their own patent portfolios. For example, Apple, Microsoft, Nokia and others paid $4.5 billion for the patents of the bankrupt company Nortel. The patents help them to fight suits and can be used to threaten other companies to ward off litigation. However, this defensive strategy does little to promote new ideas. It might even tempt these corporations to engage in troll-like behavior themselves.” I agree that this can be a good defensive strategy but do not necessarily agree with the prediction on how it can reduce innovation.

My opinion is that when companies aquire their own patent portfolios, it will not hinder innovation because now, the company has access to many patents that it can use to build and improve upon on. Further, many technology companies need to always innovate and make new products and patents because that is one of the primary drivers of their success. Tech companies need to come up with new breakthroughs if they want to reach the top of the market or remain at the top of the market.

Sources

http://www.insidecounsel.com/2014/03/03/the-top-10-businesses-targeted-by-patent-trolls

http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/everyday-innovations/patent-trolls4.htm

Complexities and Example of NPEs

Complexities and Example of NPEs 

This blog post will outline the complexities and some examples of NPEs.

To start things off, I just want to highlight the current trend that involves NPEs. Patent lawsuits involving NPEs have increased dramatically over the last decade, by an average of 22% per year since 2004. 

IPwatchdog.com writes that it can be hard to define a patent troll and sometimes – “No one really knows what a patent troll is. The website writes that the anti-patent people do not want it defined too precisely because if it were defined, it would include “all major U.S. universities (that manufacture no products), most individual inventors (who have not yet gotten their inventions funded), most startup companies (that have not yet gone to market), and most bankrupt companies.”

This suggests that patent trolls can refer to any entity that wants to earn revenue primarily through the enforcement of its patents or any company or entity who may be planning on developing a produce but have not amassed the required resources to do so. So, defining what a patent troll is can be problematic because it encompasses a lot of possible entities, some of which are likely to have positive benefits.

NPEs have been acquiring patents and asserting infringement for more than a decade. Today, there are more than 900 active NPEs and as their numbers have grown so has the pool of operating companies being targeted for patent litigation. In 2008, 1,600 operating companies were embroiled in NPE lawsuits. By 2011, the number of defendants had grown more than two-fold to nearly 2,400. Many of these defendants are facing repeated assertions; some operating companies were named in more than 50 suits in 2012 alone.

It seems like the number of NPEs will continue to grow because in today’s knowledge based economy, where most companies benefit from intellectual property advantages, will create an environment in which more and more patents are filed, some of which will come from NPEs.

Sources:

http://www.rpxcorp.com/patent-risk/npe-impact/

http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/non-practicing-entity-NPE

Introduction and Commentary on NPE or Patent Trolls

Introduction and Commentary on NPE or Patent Trolls

This blog is going to introduce the concept of Non practicing entities (NPEs) also known as Patent trolls.

Patent trolls or non-practicing entities refers to certain companies or people that create patents with the main goal of earning the majority of their revenue from the licensing or enforcement of their patents. This is important because typically one would think that patents are made so that one can use the product to generate revenue but NPEs instead use the enforcement of the product, not the product itself to gain revenue.

NPEs are also called patent trolls because they can be controversial in several ways. Techtarget.com defines an NPE as “someone who holds a patent for a product or process but has no intentions of developing it” - doing so can actually be harmful to society if what is being patented can provide many benefits. The website also adds that “Patent trolls amass large numbers of patents with the intention of launching patent infringement suits against companies and individuals that they maintain have illegally used some element of something for which they hold the patent,” so it seems like NPEs have found a way to use the government patent regulation system to create their own business. Other types of non-practicing entities include universities and other research organizations and individual inventors lacking the resources to further develop something they have designed or created. 

My opinion on the NPE is that it is a creative way to seek an alternative source of revenue, and it makes logical sense that someone with a patent would maximize the possible avenues of revenue, not only for the patent, but the enforcement of it.

Youtube Clips on Obviousness

This blog post will review some of the Youtube videos I watched to get a better understanding of patent obviousness.

Clip 1: Novelty and Non-Obviousness

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Cv6DbegPxY

This video is about novelty and non-obviousness. It is narrated by a patent lawyer so I think it is credible. Novelty means the product or method is unique and nothing out there is exactly the same. An invention has to be non-obvious – there needs to be some difference that someone in the field will not have thought of. The example that the patent lawyer makes - of making the size of the cloth hanger a smaller one - is a great example and sheds light on obviousness. Hangers of different sizes are too obvious so cannot be patented. A kid size hanger and an adult size hanger are very similar in the manufacturing process required to make them. However, obviousness is complex and can be vague at times, different patent examiners may have different views on whether something is obvious or not.

Clip 2: Finding the Best Prior Art

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pQbO3aIWdGA

This clip is about finding prior art that can help determine whether an invention is obvious or not. Looking for prior art can be complicated because prior art can exist in many different forms – can be curried patents or products that are already in the marketplace. One thing I loved from the patent searching process explanation is that it is hard to find the closet prior art to your intended invention because it is easy to have different word phrasings for similar products. The classification search – which he suggested – seems to be more logical and effective. This way, the classification search can get around the problem of different wording and go to the root of where the patent should be found – its use and its industry.

Conclusion: I think these 2 videos are really great at explaining the concepts outlined above, especially because the videos are being explained by an actual patent attorney who knows the “ins and outs” of the patent process. 

Research on Patent Obviousness

Research on Patent Obviousness

Article 1: Patent Law 103: When Is An Invention Obvious And When Is It Patentable?

http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/231900/Patent/Patent+Law+103+When+Is+An+Invention+Obvious+And+When+Is+It+Patentable

This article talks about the steps needed to determine if a patent is obvious. It writes that “The Supreme Court described the factual inquiries necessary to determine whether an invention is obvious. First, the scope and content of the prior art must be assessed. Second, the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art must be identified. Third, the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art must be resolved.” So in the discussion of whether something can be patent, one has to analyze whether the patent makes use of existing inventions, if the patent adds any unique value to the inventions it perhaps builds on, and whether or not combining the prior inventions is easy – if someone skilled in the field can make it or not.

Article 2: When is an Invention Obvious?

http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2014/02/01/when-is-an-invention-obvious/id=47709/

This article discusses the definition of obviousness in US patent law. Obviousness, according to the writer is “whether there is any combination of prior art references that when put together would be the invention in question.” So for example, remembering the cup patents, it seems like the cup that has a thermometer is obvious in that it builds from 2 different patents – the thermometer and the cup. Yet, it was accepted as a patent because the integration of the thermometer to the cup moved beyond just dipping a thermometer into the cup, and actually integrating the thermometer to the design of the cup. This means that one has to do thorough research before establishing whether or not one can patent his or her idea.

Conclusion: I think the definition of obvious is becoming clearer to me but I still wonder what breaks the line between obvious and non-obvious combinations of prior art. It is highly subjective and seems open to debate.