Changes

One important question is how the patents and the enforcement of patent rights vary between NPEs and regular firms. In empirical work Shrestha (2010) finds that "NPEs in fact hold high value patents and do not engage in frivolous litigation as has been alleged by their critics". Similar findings are reported in Miller (2011) who says, "I am surprised to find as much evidence as I have supporting those who argue that NPEs serve a useful role in the patent system and generally do not assert weaker patents then those asserted by other litigation claimants. The evidence suggests NPEs may in fact assist foreigners and individuals in collecting the rewards they are entitled to by current patent law." Though Miller (2011) also warns that NPEs seem to litigate patents with broad claims, business method patents, and patents on emerging technologies more frequently than their practicing counterparts. Risch (2011) is even more supportive of NPEs, saying "There is no uniform story about NPE patents or where they come from. While some are business methods patents, most are not. While some litigated patents come from failed start-ups, most did not. While some patents were initially assigned to licensing NPEs, most were not. Indeed, some extremely large companies - and even the federal government - have turned to the very same NPEs to enforce some patents. Some patents enforced by NPEs are invalid, while most are not. NPEs litigate patents with objective indicia that are similar to other litigated patents and appear to be invalidated about as often as other litigated patents, so long as they are not repeatedly asserted." He concludes by saying "There is one marked difference, however. Individuals may face a significant disadvantage in high-stakes patent litigation unless they allow NPEs to enforce their patents. This means that NPE litigation may be the best way for garage inventors to capitalize on their patents if infringers refuse to license." Fischer and Henkel (2009) suggest that NPE patents are actually of high quality and have a high likelihood of being held up in court. They hint at the endogenous selection of patents into an NPE’s portfolio, but are more concerned with potential inefficiencies that might arise by separating the market for patents from the market for technologies.  On the issue of settlements and royalties, Layne-Farrar and Schmidt (2009) claim that "there is no justification for the presumption that non-integrated patent holders always charge higher royalties than vertically integrated companies. Moreover, even when non-integrated patent holders charge ’higher’ royalties than their vertically integrated counterparts, it does not imply that the rates are ’excessive’ or that the firm is exhibiting troll-like behavior. Rather, non-integrated patent holders naturally require higher royalty earnings because they earn no profits downstream and receive no payments in kind in the form of cross-licenses." Likewise, Mazzeo et al. (2011) provides evidence that settlement to patent trolls might not be excessive. Using a sample of settlements that are not related to trolls (or at trolls aren’t identified), they report that "... it does not appear that a systematic or pervasive problem of excessive patent damage awards exists." They also note that "[o]ver 75 percent of the variation in observed patent award levels can be explained by the assembled information about the cases, litigants, and patents-at-issue. As a result, infringement awards can be said to be highly predictable. Large awards are not excessive outliers with respect to the empirical analysis in this study." Reitzig et al. (2006, 2007) use a more theoretical approach to argue that troll settlements are excessive.  Love (2011) finds that NPEs litigate at a much later point in a patent’s term than practicing entities, and suggests that shortening patent terms might be beneficial. Related papers include Allison et al. (2010) who consider litigation frequency (NPEs are frequently involved in litigation), and Lu (2011b) who consider royalty rates (NPEs charge royalty rates that are not different from practicing companies). Liang (2010) consider whether NPEs forum shop and finds evidence that they do.

The law literature has focused mainly on judicial reform and whether NPE infrigement cases should fall under the property rule or the liability rule. Farrand et al. (2011) and Helm and Lee (2008) tackle judicial reform in the patent system related to NPEs and Jones (2006) considers NPEs head on. Likewise there is a large sub-literature that considers the impact of the eBay/Merx decision from the Superb Court, which effective prevents NPEs, as well as many other inventors, from seeking injunctive relief. Typical papers include Eddings (2005),Golden (2006),Mersino (2007) and Maughan (2012). Helm (2006) explains that Pharmaceutical firms supported the NPE position because the injunctive relief differentially affects different industries ability to innovate, and Casagrande (2006) suggests that true problem at issue was business method patents, and the Supreme Court’s decision missed the mark. Other judicial reform papers include Chan and Fawcett (2005), who considers the 2005 Patent Reform Act; Reitzig et al. (2006) who argues that courts make unrealistic trade-offs in cases involving NPEs (and should be stricter); and Ferrill (2004) who suggests the creation of Patent Investment Trusts. On whether the property rule or the liability rule is appropriate, and whether the liability rule can be contracted around, Sichelman (2011) and Lemley (2011) provide seminal comments. Finally, Hricik (2010) who considers the ethics of representing each side (and suggests the ethical quandary is in representing the infringer, not the NPE).

*Abril, P.S. Plant, R. 2007. The patent holder’s dilemma: buy, sell, or troll? Communications of the ACM, vol. 50 50 (1), pp. 36-44.[http://www.edegan.com/pdfs/Abril%20Plant%20(2007)%20-%20The%20patent%20holders%20dilemma.pdf pdf]*Allison, J.R., Lemley, M.A., Walker, J. 2010. Patent quality and risk aversion among repeat patent litigants.[http://www.edegan.com/pdfs/Allison%20Lemley%20Walker%20(2010)%20-%20Patent%20Quality%20and%20Risk%20Aversion%20Among%20Repeat%20Patent%20Litigants.pdf pdf]*Beron, B.L. Kinsella, J.E. 2011. David vs. goliath patent cases: A search for the most practical mechanism of third party litigation financing for small plaintiffs. N. Ky. L. Rev., vol. 3838, pp. 605-687.*Casagrande, T.L. 2006. The reach of ebay inc. v. mercexchange, llc: Not just for trolls and patents. Hous. Law., vol. 4444, pp. 10-11.[http://www.edegan.com/pdfs/Casagrande%20(2006)%20-%20The%20Reach%20of%20eBay%20Inc%20v%20MercExchange%20LLC.pdf pdf]*Chan, J. Fawcett, M. 2005. Footsteps of the patent troll. Intell. Prop. L. Bull., vol. 1010, p. 11.[http://www.edegan.com/pdfs/Chan%20Fawcett%20(2005)%20-%20Footsteps%20of%20the%20Patent%20Troll.pdf pdf]*Chien, C.V. 2008. Of trolls, davids, goliaths, and kings: Narratives and evidence in the litigation of high-tech patents. NCL Rev., vol. 8787, p. 1571.[http://www.edegan.com/pdfs/Chien%20(2008)%20-%20Of%20Trolls%20Davids%20Goliaths%20and%20Kings.pdf pdf]*Chien, C.V. 2010. From arms race to marketplace: The new complex patent ecosystem. Hastings Law Journal, vol. 6262. [http://www.edegan.com/pdfs/Chien%20(2010)%20-%20From%20Arms%20Race%20to%20Marketplace.pdf pdf]*Cooper FeldmanChuang, RA. Ewing, T2006. Fixing the failures of software patent protection: Deterring patent trolling by applying industry-specific patentability standards. S. 2011Cal. The giants among usInterdisc.*EddingsLJ, Rvol. 2005 16, p. Trolls and titans take fight to top court215. Loy[http://www. Consumer Ledegan. Revcom/pdfs/Chuang%20(2006)%20-%20Fixing%20the%20Failures%20of%20Software%20Patent%20Protection.pdf pdf]*Cooper Feldman, volR. 18 Ewing, pT. 5032011.*Farrand, JThe giants among us.R[http://www., Shapiro, Vedegan.Ccom/pdfs/CooperFeldman%20Ewing%20(2011)%20-%20The%20Giants%20Among%20Us.pdf pdf]*Eddings, Abbott, PR.A2005., Stothers, CTrolls and titans take fight to top court.MLoy., Weisberg, SConsumer L.DRev., Killworthvol. 18, Rp.A503. 2011[http://www. Judicial reform of patent litigation in the usaedegan. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, vol. 6 com/pdfs/Eddings%20(62005), pp. 381%20-395%20Trolls%20and%20Titans%20Take%20Fight%20to%20Top%20Court.pdf pdf]*FerrillCotropia, EC.DA. 20042009. Patent investment trusts: Let’s build a pit to catch The individual inventor motif in the age of the patent trollstroll. NCJL Yale JL & Tech., vol. 6 12, p. 367 52. [http://www.*Fischer, T. Henkel, Jedegan. com/pdfs/Cotropia%20(2009. Patent trolls on markets for technology)%20-an empirical analysis of trolls’ patent acquisitions%20The%20individual%20inventor%20motif%20in%20the%20age%20of%20the%20patent%20troll.pdf pdf]*GeradinDiessel, DB.H., Layne2007. Trolling for trolls: The pitfalls of the emerging market competition requirement for permanent injunctions in patent cases post-Farrar, Aebay., Padilla, AMich.JL. 2012Rev. Elves or trolls? the role of non-practicing patent owners in the innovation economy. Industrial and Corporate Change, vol. 21 (1)106, ppp. 305. 73[http://www.edegan.com/pdfs/Diessel%20(2007)%20-94%20Trolling%20for%20Trolls.pdf pdf]*Goldend’Incelli, JG.M2008. 2006. Patent trolls and Has ebay spelled the end of patent remedies. Textroll abuses-paying the toll: The rise (and fall) of the patent troll. U. Miami Bus. L. Rev., vol. 85 17, p. 2111343. [http://www.edegan.com/pdfs/dIncelli%20(2008)%20-%20Has%20Ebay%20Spelled%20the%20End%20of%20Patent%20Troll%20Abuses.pdf pdf][http://www.edegan.com/pdfs/Filelist.txt pdf]*GregoryFarrand, J.KR. 2006. Troll next door, theShapiro, V. JC. Marshall Rev, Abbott, P. IntellA. Prop, Stothers, C. LM., vol. 6Weisberg, pS. iD.*Hagiu, A. YoffieKillworth, DR.A. 2011. Intermediaries for Judicial reform of patent litigation in the ip marketusa.*HarkinsJournal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, Cvol.A6 (6), pp. 2007381-395. Fending off paper patents and patent trolls[http: A novel cold fusion defense because changing times demand it//www.edegan.com/pdfs/Farrand%20(2011)%20-%20Judicial%20reform%20of%20patent%20litigation%20in%20the%20USA. Albpdf pdf]*Ferrill, E. LJ SciD. & Tech2004., volPatent investment trusts: Let’s build a pit to catch the patent trolls. 17NCJL & Tech., vol. 6, p. 407367.*Helm, J[http://www.Sedegan. 2006com/pdfs/Ferrill%20(2004)%20-%20Patent%20Investment%20Trusts.pdf pdf]*Fischer, T. Why pharmaceutical firms support patent trolls: The disparate impact of ebay v Henkel, J. mercexchange 2009. Patent trolls on innovationmarkets for technology-an empirical analysis of trolls’ patent acquisitions. Mich[http://www. Telecommedegan. & Tech. L. Revcom/pdfs/Fischer%20Henkel%20(2009)%20-%20Patent%20Trolls%20on%20Markets%20for%20Technology.pdf pdf]*Geradin, volD. 13, p. 331.*HelmLayne-Farrar, K.A. , LeePadilla, GA.WJ. 20082012. Call it a comeback: A sweeping change in Elves or trolls? the law on declaratory judgment actions against role of non-practicing patent ownersin the innovation economy. NYU Ann. Surv. Am. L.Industrial and Corporate Change, vol. 6421 (1), ppp. 23173-94.*Hricik, D[http://www. 2010edegan. Legal ethics and noncom/pdfs/Geradin%20LayneFarrar%20Padilla%20(2012)%20-practicing entities: Being on the receiving end matters too%20Elves%20or%20Trolls. Santa Clara Computer & High Techpdf pdf]*Golden, J.M. 2006. Patent trolls and patent remedies. Tex. L. Rev. LJ, vol. 2785, ppp. 2111. [http://www.edegan. 793com/pdfs/Golden%20(2006)%20-793%20Patent%20Trolls%20and%20Patent%20Remedies.pdf pdf]*JonesGregory, MJ.K. 2006. Permanent injunctionTroll next door, a remedy by any other name is patently not the same: How ebay v. mercexchange affects the patent right of non-practicing entitiesJ. Marshall Rev. Intell. GeoProp. Mason L. Rev., vol. 146, p. 1035i. [http://www.edegan.com/pdfs/Gregory%20(2006)%20-%20The%20Troll%20Next%20Door.pdf pdf]*Layne-FarrarHagiu, A. 2012 Yoffie, D. 2011. Intermediaries for the ip market. The brothers grimm book of business models[http: A survey of literature and developments in patent acquisition and litigation.*Lemley, M. //www.edegan.com/pdfs/Hagiu%20Yoffie%20(2011)%20-%20Intermediaries%20for%20the%20IP%20market. Contracting around liability rules.pdf pdf]*LemleyHarkins, MC.A. 2007. Are universities Fending off paper patents and patent trolls: A novel cold fusion defense because changing times demand it. Fordham IntellAlb. PropLJ Sci. Media & EntTech. LJ, vol. 1817, p. 611407.[http://www.edegan.com/pdfs/Harkins%20(2007)%20-%20Fending%20off%20Paper%20Patents%20and%20Patent%20Trolls.pdf pdf]*LiangHelm, MJ.S. 20102006. Why pharmaceutical firms support patent trolls: The aftermath disparate impact of ts tech: The end of forum shopping in patent litigation and implications for non-practicing entitiesebay v. Texmercexchange on innovation. IntellMich. PropTelecomm. & Tech. L. Rev. LJ, vol. 1913, ppp. 331. [http://www.edegan. 29com/pdfs/Helm%20(2006)%20-419%20Why%20Pharmaceutical%20Firms%20Support%20Patent%20Trolls.pdf pdf]*LoveHelm, BK. 2011A. An empirical study of patent litigation timing: Could a patent term reduction decimate trolls without harming innovators? *Lu, J Lee, G.W. 2011a2008. The economics and controversies of nonpracticing entities (npes)Call it a comeback: How npes and defensive patent aggregators will A sweeping change license marketin the law on declaratory judgment actions against patent owners. NYU Ann.*LuSurv. Am. L., vol. 64, Jp. 231. 2011b[http://www. Have non-practicing entities edegan.com/pdfs/Helm%20Lee%20(npe’s2008) been overcompensated? %20-%20Call%20It%20a%20Comeback.pdf pdf]*MaglioccaHricik, GD.N2010. 2006. Blackberries Legal ethics and barnyardsnon-practicing entities: Patent trolls and Being on the perils of innovationreceiving end matters too. Notre Dame L. RevSanta Clara Computer & High Tech.LJ, vol. 8227, ppp. 1809793-793.*MaughanJones, EM. 20122006. Protecting Permanent injunction, a remedy by any other name is patently not the rights of inventorssame: How natural rights theory should influence ebay v. mercexchange affects the injunction analysis in patent infringement casesright of non-practicing entities. Geo. JL & PubMason L. Rev. Pol’y, vol. 1014, ppp. 215-3211035.[http://www.edegan.com/pdfs/Jones%20(2006)%20-%20Permanent%20Injunction%20A%20Remedy%20by%20Any%20Other%20Name%20is%20Patently%20Not%20the%20Same.pdf pdf]*McDonough IIILayne-Farrar, JA.F2012. 2006. Myth The brothers grimm book of the patent trollbusiness models: An alternative view of the function A survey of literature and developments in patent dealers in an idea economy, theacquisition and litigation. Emory LJ, vol[http://www. 56, pedegan. 189com/pdfs/LayneFarrar%20(2012)%20-%20The%20Brothers%20Grimm%20Book%20of%20Business%20Models.pdf pdf]*MergesLayne-Farrar, RA.S.P Schmidt, K. 2009. The trouble with trollsLicensing complementary patents: Innovation‘patent trolls’, rent-seekingmarket structure, and patent law reform‘excessive’royalties. [http://www. Berkeley Techedegan. LJ, vol. 24, pp. 1583com/pdfs/LayneFarrar%20Schmidt%20(2009)%20-1647%20Licensing%20Complementary%20Patents.pdf pdf]*MersinoLemley, P.M. 20072011. Patents, trolls, and personal propertyContracting around liability rules. [http: Will ebay auction away a patent holder’s right to exclude//www. Ave Maria Ledegan. Revcom/pdfs/Lemley%20(2007)%20-%20Are%20universities%20patent%20trolls.pdf pdf]*Lemley, M.A. 2007. Are universities patent trolls. Fordham Intell. Prop. Media & Ent. LJ, vol. 618, p. 307611.*Miller, S[http://www. edegan.com/pdfs/Lemley%20(2011)%20-%20Contracting%20Around%20Liability%20Rules. Patent ‘trolls’: Rent-seeking parasites or innovation-facilitating middlemen? pdf pdf]*MorganLiang, M. 20082010. Stop looking under the bridge for imaginary creaturesThe aftermath of ts tech: A comment examining who really deserves the title The end of forum shopping in patent trolllitigation and implications for non-practicing entities. FedTex. Intell. CirProp. BJLJ, vol. 1719, ppp. 29-419. [http://www.edegan. 165com/pdfs/Liang%20(2010)%20-%20The%20Aftermath%20of%20TS%20Tech.pdf pdf]*MyersLove, DB. 20062011. Reeling in the An empirical study of patent litigation timing: Could a patent trollterm reduction decimate trolls without harming innovators? [http: Was ebay v//www. mercexchange enoughedegan. J. Intell. Prop. L., vol. 14, p. 333com/pdfs/Love%20(2011)%20-%20An%20Empirical%20Study%20of%20Patent%20Litigation%20Timing.pdf pdf]*PohlmannLu, TJ. Opitz, M. 20102011a. The economics and controversies of nonpracticing entities (npes): How npes and defensive patent troll business: An efficient model to enforce ipr? aggregators will change license market. *ReitzigLu, MJ. 2011b., HenkelHave non-practicing entities (npe’s) been overcompensated? *Luman III, J., F. HeathDodson, C.L. 2006. On sharksNo longer a myth, trolls, and other the emergence of the patent animalstroll:‘being infringed’as a normatively induced Stifling innovation exploitation strategy, increasing litigation, and extorting billions. In Available at SSRNIntell. Prop. Tech. LJ, vol. 885914 18, pp. 1-1. [http://www.edegan.com/pdfs/Luman%20Dodson%20(2006)%20-%20No%20longer%20a%20myth%20the%20emergence%20of%20the%20patent%20troll.pdf pdf]*RischMagliocca, MG. 2011N. 2006. Blackberries and barnyards: Patent troll mythstrolls and the perils of innovation. Notre Dame L. Seton Hall Law ReviewRev.*Shrestha, Svol. 201082, p. 1809. [http://www.edegan. Trolls or marketcom/pdfs/Magliocca%20(2006)%20-makers? an empirical analysis of non-practicing entities%20Blackberries%20and%20barnyards.pdf pdf]*SichelmanMaughan, TE. 20112012. Protecting the rights of inventors: How natural rights theory should influence the injunction analysis in patent infringement cases. Geo. JL & Pub. Pol’y, vol. 10, pp. 215-321. *Mazzeo, M., Hillel, J., Zyontz, S. 2011. Excessive or unpredictable? an empirical analysis of patent infringement awards. [http://www.edegan.com/pdfs/Mazzeo%20Hillel%20Zyontz%20(2011)%20-%20Excessive%20or%20Unpredictable.pdf pdf]*McDonough III, J.F. 2006. Myth of the patent troll: An alternative view of the function of patent dealers in an idea economy, the. Emory LJ, vol. 56, p. 189. [http://www.edegan.com/pdfs/McDonough%20(2006)%20-%20Myth%20of%20the%20Patent%20Troll.pdf pdf]*Merges, R.P. 2009. The trouble with trolls: Innovation, rent-seeking, and patent law reform. Berkeley Tech. LJ, vol. 24, pp. 1583-1647. [http://www.edegan.com/pdfs/Merges%20(2009)%20-%20The%20Trouble%20with%20Trolls.pdf pdf]*Mersino, P.M. 2007. Patents, trolls, and personal property: Will ebay auction away a patent holder’s right to exclude. Ave Maria L. Rev., vol. 6, p. 307. [http://www.edegan.com/pdfs/Mersino%20(2007)%20-%20Patents%20Trolls%20and%20Personal%20Property.pdf pdf]*Miller, S. 2011. Patent ‘trolls’: Rent-seeking parasites or innovation-facilitating middlemen? [http://www.edegan.com/pdfs/Miller%20(2011)%20-%20Patent%20Trolls%20Rent%20Seeking%20Parasites%20or%20Innovation%20Facilitating%20Middlemen.pdf pdf]*Morgan, M. 2008. Stop looking under the bridge for imaginary creatures: A comment examining who really deserves the title patent troll. Fed. Cir. BJ, vol. 17, p. 165. [http://www.edegan.com/pdfs/Morgan%20(2008)%20-%20Stop%20Looking%20Under%20the%20Bridge%20for%20Imaginary%20Creatures.pdf pdf]*Myers, D. 2006. Reeling in the patent troll: Was ebay v. mercexchange enough. J. Intell. Prop. L., vol. 14, p. 333. [http://www.edegan.com/pdfs/Myers%20(2006)%20-%20Reeling%20in%20the%20Patent%20Troll.pdf pdf]*Pohlmann, T. Opitz, M. 2010. The patent troll business: An efficient model to enforce ipr? [http://www.edegan.com/pdfs/Pohlmann%20Opitz%20(2010)%20-%20The%20Patent%20Troll%20Business.pdf pdf]*Rantanen, J. 2007. Slaying the troll: litigation as an effective strategy against patent threats. [http://www.edegan.com/pdfs/Rantanen%20(2007)%20-%20Slaying%20the%20troll.pdf pdf]*Reitzig, M., Henkel, J., Heath, C. 2006. On sharks, trolls, and other patent animals:‘being infringed’as a normatively induced innovation exploitation strategy. In Available at SSRN, vol. 885914. [http://www.edegan.com/pdfs/Reitzig%20Henkel%20Heath%20(2006)%20-%20On%20Sharks%20Trolls%20and%20Other%20Patent%20Animals.pdf pdf]*Reitzig, M., Henkel, J., Heath, C. 2007. On sharks, trolls, and their patent prey: Unrealistic damage awards and firms’ strategies of ’being infringed’. Research Policy, vol. 36 (1), pp. 134-154. [http://www.edegan.com/pdfs/Reitzig%20Henkel%20Heath%20(2007)%20-%20On%20sharks%20trolls%20and%20their%20patent%20prey.pdf pdf]*Risch, M. 2011. Patent troll myths. Seton Hall Law Review. [http://www.edegan.com/pdfs/Risch%20(2011)%20-%20Patent%20Troll%20Myths.pdf pdf]*Shrestha, S. 2010. Trolls or market-makers? an empirical analysis of non-practicing entities. [http://www.edegan.com/pdfs/Shrestha%20(2010)%20-%20Trolls%20or%20Market%20makers.pdf pdf]*Sichelman, T. 2011. Purging patent law of ‘private law’ remedies. [http://www.edegan.com/pdfs/Sichelman%20(2011)%20-%20Purging%20Patent%20Law%20of%20Private%20Law%20Remedies.pdf pdf]*Tokic, S. 2012. The role of consumers in deterring settlement agreements based on invalid patents: The case of non-practicing entities. Stan. Tech. L. Rev., vol. 2012, pp. 2-3. [http://www.edegan. Purging patent law of ‘private law’ remediescom/pdfs/Tokic%20(2012)%20-%20The%20Role%20of%20Consumers%20in%20Deterring%20Settlement%20Agreements%20Based%20on%20Invalid%20Patents.pdf pdf]*Tokic, S. 2012. The role of consumers in deterring settlement agreements based on invalid patents: The case of non-practicing entities. Stan. Tech. L. Rev., vol. 2012, pp. 2-3.*WangWang, A.W. 2010. Rise of the patent intermediaries. Berkeley Tech. LJ, vol. 2525, pp. 159-1955.[http://www.edegan.com/pdfs/Wang%20(2010)%20-%20Rise%20of%20the%20patent%20intermediaries.pdf pdf]

In the second group, is are the broader references that back up the first group. The same themes are present, but generally less developed. Also included in this group is some key papers from the patent pools literature and the litigation of patents literature (the economic branch of it anyway). These are two literatures are complementary to the NPE literature but distinct from it. They also build off the papers in the first group. And in the third group is the 'classics'. These are universally referenced and fundamental building blocks.