Once a patent has been issued, there are Big, BIG changes as to the review process.
Here is the most comprehensive take on these changes you will find anywhere.
It is rather readable. It is rather detailed. And it is a critical-to-know follow on to anyone involved in the patent pipeline.
Now the question, you want answered, does this new (additional) process help to mend a broken patent system?
See what you think?
In the world of IP, there is a list of questions that never seem to be answered to the satisfaction of all particularly when there is generational change in who is running the corporation. Foremost among the questions is what is the revenue per patent and is it worth the time, energy and resources that must be applied not only for a patent but protect in the marketplace from infringement that may result in costly litigation. IAM presents 20 corporations with extensive patent portfolios and the revenues per patent at http://www.iam-media.com/blog/detail.aspx?g=d37195bc-4870-406d-81cc-f9e74c6e17b8. Among the points worth noting is that Apple has the least number of patents among the 20, but blows all away in the revenue it realizes for each patent.
All of those listed make sizable revenues. It is clear that the effort to patent from beginning to end is of demonstrable value to the corporation.
Symantec, Microsoft, Blue Cross: Intellectual Property – Bloomberg:
A patent troll, by any other name, may not be called a “patent troll” in court.
This would be funny, if it weren’t true. The often called “patent troll” company Intellectual Ventures LLC, can not be disparages by such names as “patent troll” in court the presiding judge says. IV — a play on the vampire concept of draining all the blood from the body of otherwise living and productive entities — does not produce anything and has a monster war chest of patents which it brings out only during the stealth of night.
In the case of an entity that buys up patents but doesn’t invent and doesn’t produce anything, the company is often referred to unkindly as a “patent troll”. In the real world, like cell phone makers, someone producing a product is exposed to other producer’s patents, and vise verse. The players are forced to work together, license and cross-license in order for anyone to produce anything.
But the troll has a wonderful vantage point. Any product produced is fare game, and the real players in the game don’t have much recourse if they want to produce anything and run a productive business.
Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) is another name for the troll, but it is not nearly so accurate.
IV was rated #1 troll in 2012 in the kingdom of patent trolls: here.
And, of course, the targets of the NPEs are larger and more innovative companies like AT&T and Google. In 2013 the “troll” toll in terms of law suites were up 19% from the prior year. (Fortune article on this topic.) It will be interesting to see what the stats for 2014 are since there has been a big drop in several types of law suits based on benchmark legal rulings.
For now, a patent troll, by any other name, will have to be by a nicer name, at least in court. I wonder if Patent Vampire, or intellectual property parasite is acceptable?
New Patent Rules: What You Need to Know | Inc.com:
As the new US patent rules really kick in, here is a very good overview what’s happening in the world of IP by DesMarais.
The US will join the rest of the world to become first-to-file (vs first-to-invent).
Litigation can be hopefully be largely avoided by moving the contesting of the patent clear up the issuing process.
But make no doubt about it, patents and IP will continue to have a dominant role in the competitive advantage of business and the innovation process.