Perpetual Innovation

Category: Non-Practicing Entity

  • Supreme Court Limits Where Patent Lawsuits Can Be Filed – WSJ

    Supreme Court Limits Where Patent Lawsuits Can Be Filed – WSJ:

    Yeah. It’s a victory. Maybe a big victory, time will tell.

    It seems that 20% or more of the patent infringement lawsuits are filed in a small corner of Texas. Even though there’s not really anything there except maybe a bogus office. But, it is a very friendly district for winning law suits by non-practicing entities (NPE) against real companies that make stuff. Such patent assertion entities (PAEs) are often ungraciously referred to as “Patent Trolls”.

    See our prior discussion on patent trolls.

    But the US Supreme court has change the rules that funneled frivolous law suits on patents into these bogus home court districts.

    As much as it is good to see patents being used, and enforced, there needs to be a balance. Companies have been paying off frivolous patent assertion law suits because it is too time consuming and expensive to fight; especially if the suit would occur in a distant venue that is famously friendly to the trolls that lurk there.

    Way to go supreme court.

    ‘via Blog this’

  • China’s Patent-Lawsuit Profile Grows – Troll Tolls Too – WSJ

    China’s Patent-Lawsuit Profile Grows – WSJ:

    China as a focal point of Intellectual Property, in the patent office and in the courts.

    This law suit by WiLAN is interesting to see how the “assertion” of patents can move and shift.

    Here’s a little background on WiLAN from Wikipedia.

    As you can see the company originally developed stuff so it would not be categorized as a Non-Practicing Entity (NPE), or Patent Troll in the ungracious term that is sometimes more appropriate for NPEs. WiLAN seems to be moving more steadily into the troll category.

    Now with a war chest of some 3,000 patents+pendings, WiLAN is a strong international force.

    In 2013 Daniel Fisher describes the Texas case where WiLAN had its core patents to the suit invalidated in “how to bag a patent troll“. The stock (on the Toronto exchange) fell 33% to $3.25. In 2014, Apple won again in California.

    Apple has won several law suits against WiLAN including a 2016 verdict. Look at the 6mo & 10yr stock chart on Yahoo, where it dropped from $3.40 to $2.30 in a few days at the end of July 2016. It now trades at $1.80.

    The Investor profile is not so good, even with the Samsung licensing deal last year.

    WiLAN continues to build its patent portfolio.

    One of the things that a Patent Troll never wants to do, is actually go to court. Patents can be invalidated, remedies can be diminished, and the golden goose can give up the ghost.

    Gotta love the trading symbol that starts with WIN (WIN.to).

    There are several things that WiLAN could do to make it a much more legitimate player, and less of a troll. But those involve capital investments in R&D to invent, manufacturing to produce, sales and marketing to sell. That’s a different business model. As long as investors are happy with investing in trolls, the trolls will rein supreme within their little serfdom of bridges.

    ‘via Blog this’

  • The Toll of the Patent Troll by any other name: Intellectual Property – Bloomberg

    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?

    ‘via Blog this’