Patent Trolls on Trial?
Reprinted with permission.
Patent Trolls on Trial?
by Maggie Tamburro
Posted by Maggie Tamburro on 2012/08/14
Lately many have taken a stand against the nefariously labeled patent troll. Rarely have we witnessed such media vitriol and legal backlash targeted at those some criticize for asserting what is actually a perfectly legal, proprietary business interest.
And perhaps not without good reason – according to a much publicized study out of Boston University School of Law, patent trolls allegedly cost the U.S. economy $29 billion per year.
Emblematic of the mounting criticism is an August 1, 2012 bill, introduced to the U.S. House by Rep. Peter DeFazio, which seeks to curb allegedly frivolous patent litigation by the patent troll by making the loser of such a suit potentially liable for the defendant’s litigation costs. Called the “Saving High-Tech Innovators from Egregious Legal Disputes of 2012” (SHIELD), the bill proposes to amend 35 U.S.C. chapter 29 to allow “the recovery of computer hardware and software patent litigation costs in cases where the court makes a determination that the claimant did not have a reasonable likelihood of succeeding, and for other purposes.”
Are All Patent Trolls Inherently Evil?
Patent troll is a derogatory label often used to describe an entity that enforces patents it owns against alleged infringers in a manner considered aggressive and opportunistic, without intent to manufacture or produce the product involved. Often called non-practicing entities (NPEs), patent trolls have sparked much debate and been criticized for bringing meritless infringement suits against producing companies – thereby encouraging the accused infringer to settle or risk losing substantial investment made in the associated product.
Which caused us to consider: When does a bona fide patent aggregator cross the line and become a so-called nefarious patent troll? Are some licensing activities more equal than others? And haven’t many companies been doing this for years – aggregating, licensing and asserting patents associated with areas other than that which is the company’s primary practice? Is a troll someone who practices none of its patents? If no, what ratio between licensing and practicing should be considered reasonable?
While some entities seem to exist for the sole purpose of lying in wait to bring infringement claims against producing businesses, on closer inspection, not all so-called patent trolls are created equal. Perhaps we should abandon the name-calling altogether, as the line between a patent troll, NPE, (or even a semi-practicing entity) seeking to enforce its patents becomes fuzzier.
For example, according to a recent article in the Wall Street Journal, IBM has been in the business of licensing and monetizing its ever-expanding patent portfolio for a decade. At what point does a company that holds and asserts patents but doesn’t practice all of the associated products earn the dubious distinction of patent troll?
In Defense of the Big Bad Troll
Some entities which aggregate and monetize patents actually contribute to innovation, pioneering ways to consolidate patents in pursuit of inventing. These entities must find novel ways to navigate a malfunctioning system that stifles innovation, not to mention makes it virtually impossible for the independent innovator to exist. Much has been written on the broken U.S. patent system, so we will spare the reader the details here. Suffice it to say that according to some sources, an inventor has only a 3% chance of generating more commercial revenue than obtaining the patent actually costs.
Maybe some alleged patent trolls are able to offer a venue for pursuing a different path to a less costly, more “innovative” way to invent. As with any business for commercial profit, there are always those in the system who will attempt to subvert it in bad faith to the commercial disadvantage of others. But maybe it’s time to rethink the way we look at the issue and bring our thinking (and resulting labels) in line with the realities and modern business practices.
Not all Patent Trolls are Inherently Evil
As Juliet famously declared, “A rose by any other name would smell as sweet…” Many of the companies decrying the opportunistic tactics of patent trolls are actively engaged in doing the same thing under different auspices.
For example, the Wall Street Journal recently reported that Kodak has 1100 patents up for sale, with no shortage of the largest and most powerful U.S. corporate giants lined up to buy them. Would you consider Google a patent troll? How about Apple? Some of the most respected technological names in the world are no strangers to aggregation and monetization of patents. And why should they be? After all, intellectual property is a legitimate commercial asset and a protectable, legally recognized property right – and therefore arguably should be fair game in the commercial marketplace.
Other instances of patent aggregation and monetization are out there – although you might have to look hard to find them. Companies don’t seem keen on discussing their patent aggregating tactics and as far as we know aren’t required to disclose their patent portfolio. According to the Wall Street Journal, last year five large and well known companies spent over $4.5 billion dollars buying up 6,000 patents, which they combined and placed into a separate business entity.
Patent aggregation in an effort to keep patents out of the hands of competitors is not a new concept. Although it may be a different side of the same coin, the concept of aggregating patents defensively is closely intertwined to aggregating them for offensive or licensing purposes, and serves yet another legitimate business interest. But when does defensive aggregation turn into acceptable monetization and for-profit licensing? Isn’t that an inevitable and legitimate result?
Interestingly, even attorneys who used to defend some of the biggest corporations against patent infringement are reportedly jumping ship and switching sides, forming their own NPEs. As the saying goes, if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em.
Further, consider a process practiced by governments, leading universities, and research institutions across the country: Technology transfer. Technology transfer encompasses the identification, aggregation, and development of burgeoning technologies that have potential for commercialization. Some estimate that there are 230 U.S. universities and nonprofit research institutions engaged in technology transfer today, thanks in part to the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980, which gave universities control over their licensing activities and inventions. The Association of University Technology Managers (AUTM) provides online Nine Points to Consider in Licensing University Technology. The pamphlet makes sure to distinguish those which “add value” by aggregation of patents from the so-called patent troll, who allegedly “extracts payments in the absence of any enhancement to the licensed technology.”
Patent Troll Redefined
Perhaps we need to concentrate our efforts on how we think about what defines a patent troll and what kinds of licensing and patent asserting practices are acceptable, as opposed to those that clearly cross the line. Some innovators have come up with ideas for redefining the entire patent marketplace, such as creating a patent financial exchange like IPX International.
Do you think we should redefine the term patent troll?
This article was originally published in BullsEye, an expert witness and litigation news blog published by IMS ExpertServices. Voted “Best Expert Witness Provider” in the 2012 Best of The National Law Journal survey, IMS ExpertServices is a full-service expert witness and litigation consultant search firm. Subscribe to BullsEye to receive weekly updates.
This article was originally published in BullsEye, a newsletter distributed by IMS ExpertServices™. IMS Expert Services is the premier expert witness search firm in the legal industry, focused exclusively on providing custom expert witness searches to attorneys. To read this and other legal industry BullsEye publications, please visit IMS Expert Services' recent articles. For your next expert witness search, call us at 877-838-8464 or visit our website.
Related Pages on RF Cafe
- Inventor Testimony in Patent Litigation
- Regression Analysis in Litigation
- Expert Testimony Central to Coffee Class Decision
- 10th Circuit Posits 'Unifying Theory' for Daubert Gatekeeping
- Do You Need an Expert to Sue an Expert?
- What the #!$% Is Bitcoin?
- Dilbert Versus Daubert - Which Standard Controls in Patent Design Cases?
- Lack of Expert Leads to Reversal of Patent Case
- Excluding Expert Testimony the Jury Already Heard
- 7th Circuit Excoriates Lawyers, Judges for 'Fear of Science'
- Federal Circuit Ponders Abandoning De Novo Review
- Apple, Samsung Daubert Docs Should Have Been Sealed, Federal Circuit Rules
- When an Expert's Testimony Counters His Own Report
- Fortune Telling & Reliability? An Expert Testimony Enigma
- Can Expert Statements Inadvertently Waive Protection?
- E- Discovery: 10 Strategic Steps for Defensible Search
- The 'Almighty' Federal Circuit? Evolving Patent Policy & Jurisprudence
- A Scientific Weapon for the Courtroom?
- Experts Face Fewer Challenges in Court, Survey Says
- Death of the ITC?
- No Appeal for Expert Witness 'Third Wheel'
- Patent Trolls on Trial?
- To Testify or Not to Testify: Re-Designating An Expert Witness?
- The Future of Predictive Coding (Part II) – Caveats Revealed
- The Future of Predictive Coding - Rise of the Evidentiary Expert?
- Think Before You Click - Facebook’s "Like" Button
- A Siri-ous Affair?
- Denial of Cert in "Junk Science" Case Leaves Lawyers Reeling
- A Peek "Under the Hood" of America Invents
- 10 Predictions for Litigation in 2012
- Attorneys Turn to iPads to Prepare and Question Experts
- Two Mistakes That Can Produce Tragedy in Patent Litigation
- Opposing Experts & Summary Judgment
- Could IBM’s Watson Make Experts Obsolete?
- An Expert's Change of Mind Can Be Shattering
- Why Do They Call Us Expert Witnesses? Part II
- Why Do They Call Us Expert Witnesses? Part I
- Bilski's Lesson: Avoid Abstraction
- Expert Secrecy: An Ethics Dilemma?
- New Federal Rule on Experts Takes Effect Dec. 1, 2010
More than 10,000 searchable pages indexed.