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 companies that tangentially intersect the sphere of innovationthe patent. One famous example of a patent troll is MPHJ Technology Investment, and incorrectly labeled as patent who claimed to have patents that cover any networked "scan-to-email" function. MPHJ sent demand letters to more than 16,000 small businesses, each letter demanding license fees of at least $1000 per worker.<section end=trolls.'''/>

Method 1:Find list of PAEs, sort by location, number of lawsuits filed, damages. Need to control for size of company and sector. Top 10 PAEs in 2015, according to [http://unifiedpatents.com/2015-year-end-report/ (Unified)]

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 the defendant, which include states or districts where intermediaries possess. Patent assertion entities are able to incentivize innovation through 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 (1)] 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 in their patent holdersportfolio. See [[Eastern District http://www.bna.com/challenges-of Texas]-defining-a-patent-troll/].

==An Illustration of Patent Troll Activity==There'''Hypothesis 2: Patent litigation is increasings no doubt that patent trolls exist. eDekka, but only because widely considered one of the uncertain nature top patent trolls, filed lawsuits against 101 companies for patent infringement in 2015, 55% of technological developments and how patent claims apply which are considered small businesses under SBA regulations. There may be more companies eDekka sent threatening demand letters to , companies thatdecided to settle instead of bringing the case to court. Patent litigation surges are consistent with major shifts Compare eDekka to Intellectual Ventures, which had only filed 6 patent lawsuits in technological developments'''*High tech all of 2015. Intellectual Ventures is considered by the public to be a legitimate patent monetization firm [http://www.ipnav.com/blog/patent-assertion-entities-good-or-bad-for-innovation/]. It is clear that there is a distinct difference between patent assertion entities and patent trolls. As of December 2015, eDekka had sued over 200 companies for infringing upon the only sector where US Patent no. 6,266,674 "Random Access Information Retrieval Utilizing User-Defined Labels", a patent on a majority form of household remote controls. 168 of these cases were NPE relatedlater thrown out by US District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, who wrote that the "strikingly similar lawsuits" demonstrate "an aggressive strategy that avoids testing its case on the merits and instead aims for early settlements falling at or below the cost of defense" [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/12/in-a-first-east-texas-judge-hits-patent-troll-with-attorneys-fees/].

Method: Find a reliable graph ==Evaluations of Proposed Regulations=====Stricter Demand Letter Requirements===Supporters of developments within current legislation against patent trolls claim that the technology sector huge increase in patent litigation cases proves that patent trolls, just like eDekka, are increasing in number and match it prevalence. Many of them point to stricter demand letter requirements as the one below [https://docssolution.googleThe 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 description of each alleged infringement.com/spreadsheets/d/1mx9j2cnrQ_cL0PeP3x40yN7bGxnt4mNzzPPUDNltfaU/pubchart?oid=1082659239&format=image]:

[[Image:Patent_litigation_2011There are two problems with this.2015First, the increase in patent litigation cannot be attributed to an increase in patent trolls. Patent litigation is increasing, but only because of the uncertain nature of technological advancements and the application of patent claims to these new developments. Patent litigation surges are consistent with major shifts in technological developments. There has been an increase in lawsuits, but it is proportional to the increased filings. Thus, patent trolls exist but their prevalence has been greatly exaggerated by the media.png]]

We will Second, stringent demand letter requirements are not an efficient solution to curbing patent trolls. The proposed reforms against demand letters by the Innovation act are too broad; they have the potential to stifle innovation. Patent owners acting in good faith would not be hard pressed able to find legitimately enforce their patent rights, creating an ineffective patent system and reducing the incentives for innovation. Qualcomm Incorporated, one of the leading companies within the telecommunications sector, manages a graph portfolio that can map technological development over contains at least 13,000 US patents. As a company that relies on the last 5 years reliably. Other measures current patent system to protect its innovations, Qualcomm stated that "the appropriate goal of technological development we can use the legislation should be to identify, and compare empower the FTC to patent litigation trends: total patent grantsaddress, venture capital investment amount, R&D spending only those demand letters that are sent in the high tech sectorbad faith" [http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/03/04/demand-letter-legislation-must-be-narrowly-tailored/id=55365/].

===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 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 FTC found more than 16,000 demand letters sent to small businesses. Subsequently, the FTC prohibited MPHJ from asserting "false or unsubstantiated representations" regarding a patent'''Hypothesis 3s licensing activity or the potentiality and imminence of a lawsuit. [https: Data //www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/150317mphjtechdo.pdf] However, the FTC did not award any damages to small businesses that supports increased costs fell victim to innovation rely on broad and confusing definitions for NPEs and PAEs'''this patent troll.

*A March 10, 2015 letter signed by 40 economists argued that papers claiming high direct costs of patent trolls misconstrue innocent NPEs, The bad faith standard in legislation such as universities, as the [[Targeting Rogue and Opaque Letters (TROL) Act]] provides a high standard that the FTC must meet in its patent trollsinvestigations. The broad definition of NPEs increases the number of cases filed by supposed trolls Bad faith refers to "'clear and convincing evidence' that the number of court fees accumulated through lawsuitsinfringement assertions are 'objectively baseless' to avoid dismissal on summary judgment or a motion to dismiss." [http://cpip.gmupatentlyo.educom/wp-contentpatent/uploads2013/201505/03/Economistswhat-Lawis-Profshappening-Letterin-revermont-Patentpatent-Reform.pdf]*Adam Mossoff specifically critiques aforementioned Unified Patents data for its broad definition of NPEs.[http://cpip.gmu.edu/2015/07/15/itslaw-timereform-tofrom-saythe-nobottom-up.html] In the case of an FTC investigation, the commission would have to show that a demand letter written by an alleged patent troll demonstrated bad faith assertions. Some examples of these bad faith assertions include, but are not limited to-junk-science-in-, falsely claiming the existence of a pending lawsuit, previous patent infringements, and even the valid ownership of a patent. The authors of the issue brief will note that determining the bad faith nature of demand letters sets a high standard for the-FTC. However, such a high standard will protect legitimate patent-policy-debates/]assertion entities against unreasonable investigations and sanctions.

'''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