Changes

[[Patent Trolls]] are an innovation bogeymen, ==Definition==<section begin=trolls />No agreed-upon definition of patent troll exists. The term patent troll is used interchangeably with numerous research articles the terms non-practicing entities (NPEs) and legislation addressing ways to curb troll activity. Patent Trolls, also known as [[Patent Assertion Entities]] patent assertion entities (PAEs). Despite similar sounding names, generate revenue through suing or threatening to sue businesses that infringe on patents. Experts dispute several key differences exist between the three terms for such corporations, labeling them as either [[Patent Assertion Entities]] (PAEs) or [[Non-Practicing Entities]] (NPEs).

'''Hypothesis 1: Most Patent Assertion Entities are drivers trolls may also target a slew of innovation, and incorrectly labeled as companies that tangentially intersect the sphere of the patent trolls.''' Method 1:Find list One famous example of PAEsa patent troll is MPHJ Technology Investment, sort by locationwho claimed to have patents that cover any networked "scan-to-email" function. MPHJ sent demand letters to more than 16, number of lawsuits filed000 small businesses, damages. Need to control for size each letter demanding license fees of company and sectorat least $1000 per worker.<section end=trolls />

648 total casesIn illiquid markets where asets cannot be sold or exchanged easily, 519 in E.D. Tex. 80.09% of all patent litigation cases filed in 2015 were filed in Eassertion entities can help match patent holders to patent buyers and transfer ideas and technology from inventors to manufacturers effectively.D. Texas.  A patent infringement case can be filed in any of This allows inventors to focus on innovation while benefiting from the US districts knowledge and connections that have personal jurisdiction over intermediaries possess. Patent assertion entities are able to incentivize innovation through the defendant, which include states or districts where the defendant's products are sold, regardless effective brokerage of whether or not an office exists in that locationpatents. [https://www.fenwickwhitehouse.comgov/sites/default/files/FenwickDocumentsdocs/Legal_FAQ_Patent_Litigationpatent_report.pdf] The large number They manage risks for small inventors and inform manufacturers or inventors of cases filed in E.D. Texas could point to the favorable disposition usefulness of the court having another inventor's patent holders. See [[Eastern District of Texas]].  '''Hypothesis 2: Patent litigation is increasing, but only because of the uncertain nature of technological developments and how in their patent claims apply to thatportfolio. Patent litigation surges are consistent with major shifts in technological developments'''*High tech is the only sector where a majority of cases were NPE related Method: Find a reliable graph of developments within the technology sector and match it to the one below [httpshttp://docswww.googlebna.com/spreadsheetschallenges-of-defining-a-patent-troll/d/1mx9j2cnrQ_cL0PeP3x40yN7bGxnt4mNzzPPUDNltfaU/pubchart?oid=1082659239&format=image]: [[Image:Patent_litigation_2011.2015.png]]

We will be hard pressed According to find a graph that can map technological development over the last 5 years reliablyU.S. Census Bureau, small businesses with fewer than 20 employees made up 89. Other measures 6 percent of technological development we can use employer firms in the United States in 2012. [http://sbecouncil.org/about-us/facts-and compare to patent litigation trends-data/] Small firms produce more patents per employee than large companies and help drive innovation in the United States economy. The patents they develop have a greater impact and are often more technologically important than those of large firms. [http: total patent grants//www.imamidejo.si/resources/files/doc/analiza%20patentov%20v%20msp%20usa.pdf] The Small Business Administration reported that "although small firms account for only 8 percent of patents granted, venture capital investment amount, R&D spending they account for 24 percent of the patents in the high tech sectortop 100 emerging clusters." [http://sbecouncil.org/about-us/facts-and-data/] Because small businesses and emerging companies are not always able to protect their patents on their own and account for much of the innovation driving emerging industries today, they need patent assertion entities who have the power to protect their patents for them.

'''Hypothesis 3: Data ==Evaluations of Proposed Regulations=====Stricter Demand Letter Requirements===Supporters of current legislation against patent trolls claim that supports increased costs the huge increase in patent litigation cases proves that patent trolls, just like eDekka, are increasing in number and prevalence. Many of them point to innovation rely on broad and confusing definitions for NPEs stricter demand letter requirements as the solution. The Innovation Act that is currently under consideration in the House demands that any claims of patent infringement must be accompanied by a very specific initial complaint letter, including information such as the name, exact model number, and PAEs'''description of each alleged infringement.

*A March 10There are two problems with this. First, 2015 letter signed by 40 economists argued that papers claiming high direct costs of the increase in patent trolls misconstrue innocent NPEs, such as universities, as litigation cannot be attributed to an increase in patent trolls. The broad definition Patent litigation is increasing, but only because of NPEs increases the number uncertain nature of cases filed by supposed trolls technological advancements and the number application of court fees accumulated through lawsuitspatent claims to these new developments.[http://cpip.gmu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/Economists-Law-Profs-Letter-re-Patent-Reformlitigation surges are consistent with major shifts in technological developments.pdf]*Adam Mossoff specifically critiques aforementioned Unified Patents data for its broad definition of NPEs.[http://cpip.gmu.edu/2015/07/15/its-time-There has been an increase in lawsuits, but it is proportional to-say-no-to-junk-science-in-the-increased filings. Thus, patent-policy-debates/]trolls exist but their prevalence has been greatly exaggerated by the media.

'''Hypothesis 4: Patent legislation ===Empowering the FTC===Skeptics of the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) effectiveness may question how well the commission would handle patent trolls that have heavy financial and litigation muscle. However, these skeptics should not be targeting remember that the Federal Trade Commission has already demonstrated willingness and ability to address patent trolls. In the 2014 investigation regarding MPHJ Technology Investments, LLC, the reform of FTC found more than 16,000 demand letterssent to small businesses. Subsequently, the FTC prohibited MPHJ from asserting "false or unsubstantiated representations" regarding a patent'''s licensing activity or the potentiality and imminence of a lawsuit. [https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/150317mphjtechdo.pdf] However, the FTC did not award any damages to small businesses that fell victim to this patent troll.

Recently proposed The bad faith standard in legislation includes changes to such as the form of demand letters. The Innovation [[Targeting Rogue and Opaque Letters (TROL) Act ]] provides a high standard that the FTC must meet in particular requires its patent trolls investigations. Bad faith refers to "'clear and convincing evidence' that the party alleging patent infringement assertions are 'objectively baseless' to include avoid dismissal on summary judgment or a motion to dismiss." [http://patentlyo.com/patent/2013/05/what-is-happening-in the initial complaint:*Identification of each -vermont-patent allegedly infringed*All claims (heart of -law-reform-from-the patent, defines -bottom-up.html] In the limits case of exactly what an FTC investigation, the commission would have to show that a demand letter written by an alleged patent does) necessary troll demonstrated bad faith assertions. Some examples of these bad faith assertions include, but are not limited to produce , falsely claiming the identification existence of each processa pending lawsuit, machineprevious patent infringements, manufacture, or composition and even the valid ownership of matter (accused instrumentalities) that infringe the a patent*. The name, model number, description authors of each AI*How each limitation of each claim is met by the AI*For indiret infringement, issue brief will note that determining the acts bad faith nature of demand letters sets a high standard for the infringer that are inducing FTC. However, such a direct infringement*Authority of the party to assert each high standard will protect legitimate patent assertion entities against unreasonable investigations and sanctions.

TL;DR If you believe your ==Recommendations on Curbing Patent Troll Activity==Legislation that enacts sweeping reform of the patent system will not help curb patent troll activity. This type of reform only weakens patent protection for legitimate patent holders and patent trolls alike and does not deter patent has been infringed on, you must write trolls from engaging in your initial complaint letter VERY SPECIFIC information regarding exactly which parts abusive or frivolous litigation. The [[Innovation Act]] and [[PATENT Act]] would exceed what is needed to reduce the activity done by a small number of your patent trolls by raising the costs and risks for all legitimate patent holders to enforce their patent rights in court or defend themselves from larger companies. Any legislation that would alter the current patent system should target the specific actions used by patent trolls and should not propose broad reforms that change the procedure used to enforce patents have been violated . For example, legislation like the recently proposed [[STRONG Patents Act]] gives the FTC the power to determine that certain demand letters are in "bad faith" and by what model/devicepenalize the companies that issue these letters, but also specifically protects mistakes that were made in good faith.

If Congress last passed comprehensive patent trolls are rampantreform only five years ago, in 2011, this measure could reduce and the amount of demand letters they send out and unintended consequences from those changes are still appearing. [https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/632/text#toc-id645863c82106422dbabf0358ad52716d] Without carefully analyzing the number potential effects of companies they accuse of infringement. Howeverbroad reform, patent holders that have a legitimate concern may find it hard Congress should not rush to identify combat the exact make and model small amount of the device(s) abusive litigation activity with sweeping changes that infringe upon their patent, especially in the high-tech sector where products are less clearly definednegatively affect everyone.

'''Interesting facts that may deserve extra research'''*Historically, the [[Eastern District of TexasCategory: Public]] is the top patent dispute venue. In 2015, 44% of all patent litigation was filed in E.D. Texas, most of which were assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap