558
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
'''Why does everyone like Judge Rodney Gilstrap?''' Out of Judge Rodney Gilstrap's 3743 terminated cases, *2354 were Likely settlement: stipulated dismissal*901 were Likely settlement: plaintiff voluntary dismissal*152 Procedural consolidation*151 procedural interdistrict transfer*40 procedural[[Category: dismissalInternal]]*30 Claim defendant win*11 Claim win[[Internal Classification: default judgementLegacy| ]]*4 Procedural[[Category: intradistrict transfer*2 Claimant win*2 procedural: severance Of Judge Janis Lynn Sammartino in S.D. Cal's 148 terminated cases*63 were Likely settlement: stipulated dismissal*40 were Likely settlement: plaintiff voluntary dismissal*32 Procedural stay*3 Procedural consolidation*3 procedural interdistrict transfer*4 procedural: dismissal*1 Claim defendant win*2 Claimant winPatent]]
no edit summary
Back to [[The Truth About Patent Trolls]]
There is no widely agreed upon definition of 'Patent Troll', because it is often used interchangeably with the terms [[Patent Assertion Entities]] and [[Non-Practicing Entities]], whereas we make a distinction between these three terms. For our study, we define Patent Trolls as a 'person or entity that attempts to enforce patent rights against accused infringers far beyond the patent's actual value'[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll]. Their asked damages are far beyond the market value of the patent. This is a tactic used to scare small businesses in the initial demand letter, when pressing them to pay the fee to license the patent.
*The Regents of the University of California v. Micro Therapeutics Inc. et al
*Cambridge University Press et al v. Patton et al
