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 E.D. Texas.  A assertion entities can help match patent infringement case can be filed in any of the US districts that have personal jurisdiction over the defendant, which include states or districts where the defendant's products are sold, regardless of whether or not an office exists in that location. [https://www.fenwick.com/FenwickDocuments/Legal_FAQ_Patent_Litigation.pdf] The large number of cases filed in E.D. Texas could point holders to the favorable disposition of the court patent holdersbuyers and transfer ideas and technology from inventors to manufacturers effectively. See [[Eastern District of Texas]].  '''Hypothesis 2: Patent litigation is increasing, but only because of This allows inventors to focus on innovation while benefiting from the uncertain nature of technological developments knowledge and how patent claims apply to connections thatintermediaries possess. Patent litigation surges assertion entities are consistent with major shifts in technological developments'''*High tech is able to incentivize innovation through the only sector where a majority effective brokerage of cases were NPE related Method: Find a reliable graph of developments within the technology sector and match it to the one below patents. [https://docswww.googlewhitehouse.comgov/sites/spreadsheetsdefault/dfiles/1mx9j2cnrQ_cL0PeP3x40yN7bGxnt4mNzzPPUDNltfaUdocs/pubchart?oid=1082659239&format=image]: [[Image:Patent_litigation_2011patent_report.2015.pngpdf]] We will be hard pressed to find a graph that can map technological development over They manage risks for small inventors and inform manufacturers or inventors of the last 5 years reliably. Other measures usefulness of technological development we can use and compare to patent litigation trends: total having another inventor's patent grants, venture capital investment amount, R&D spending in the high tech sector... Patent Litigation Rate: Number of their patent lawsuits relative to number of patents granted. This metric was used by economist Zorina Khan when researching historical patent litigation rates. Historical patent litigation rate during the 2000s has been 1.5%portfolio. [http://www.forbesbna.com/sites/forbesleadershipforum/2012/02/09/nochallenges-theof-patentdefining-systema-is-notpatent-broken/2troll/#121813df63a3] We should update it with the 2008-2015 numbers (currently working with Excel). '''Sub-Hypothesis: There's something fishy going on with 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: dismissal*30 Claim defendant win*11 Claim win: default judgement*4 Procedural: intradistrict transfer*2 Claimant win*2 procedural: severance *62.89% of Judge Rodney Gilstrap's terminated cases ended with a likely settlement of stipulated dismissal, where the defendant paid the plaintiff money out of court, afraid of the court judgement. In contrast, only 42.57% of Judge Janis Lynn Sammartino in S.D. Cal's terminated cases ended with likely settlement.   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 win '''Hypothesis 3: Data that supports increased costs to innovation rely on broad and confusing definitions for NPEs and PAEs'''

*A March 10According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 2015 letter signed by 40 economists argued that papers claiming high direct costs of patent trolls misconstrue innocent NPEs, such as universities, as patent trollssmall businesses with fewer than 20 employees made up 89. The broad definition 6 percent of NPEs increases employer firms in the number of cases filed by supposed trolls United States in 2012. [http://sbecouncil.org/about-us/facts-and-data/] Small firms produce more patents per employee than large companies and help drive innovation in the number United States economy. The patents they develop have a greater impact and are often more technologically important than those of court fees accumulated through lawsuitslarge firms.[http://cpipwww.gmuimamidejo.edu/wp-contentsi/uploadsresources/2015files/03doc/Economists-Law-Profs-Letter-re-Patent-Reformanaliza%20patentov%20v%20msp%20usa.pdf]*Adam Mossoff specifically critiques aforementioned Unified Patents data The Small Business Administration reported that "although small firms account for only 8 percent of patents granted, they account for its broad definition 24 percent of NPEsthe patents in the top 100 emerging clusters." [http://cpipsbecouncil.gmu.eduorg/2015about-us/07/15/itsfacts-timeand-data/] Because small businesses and emerging companies are not always able to-say-no-to-junk-science-in-protect their patents on their own and account for much of the-innovation driving emerging industries today, they need patent-policy-debates/]assertion entities who have the power to protect their patents for them.

'''Hypothesis 4: Patent ==Evaluations of Proposed Regulations=====Stricter Demand Letter Requirements===Supporters of current legislation should not against patent trolls claim that 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 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 targeting accompanied by a very specific initial complaint letter, including information such as the reform name, exact model number, and description of demand letters'''each alleged infringement.

Recently proposed legislation includes changes to There are two problems with this. First, the form of demand letters. The Innovation Act increase in particular requires the party alleging patent infringement litigation cannot be attributed to include an increase in the initial complaint:*Identification of each patent allegedly infringed*All claims (heart trolls. Patent litigation is increasing, but only because of the patent, defines uncertain nature of technological advancements and the limits application of exactly what the patent does) necessary 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 produce the identification of each process, machine, manufactureincreased filings. Thus, or composition of matter (accused instrumentalities) that infringe the patent*The name, model number, description of each AI*How each limitation of each claim is met trolls exist but their prevalence has been greatly exaggerated by the AI*For indiret infringement, the acts of the infringer that are inducing a direct infringement*Authority of the party to assert each patent media.

TLSecond, 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;DR If you believe your they have the potential to stifle innovation. Patent owners acting in good faith would not be able to legitimately enforce their patent rights, creating an ineffective patent has been infringed system and reducing the incentives for innovation. Qualcomm Incorporated, one of the leading companies within the telecommunications sector, manages a portfolio that contains at least 13,000 US patents. As a company that relies onthe current patent system to protect its innovations, Qualcomm stated that "the appropriate goal of the legislation should be to identify, you must write and empower the FTC to address, only those demand letters that are sent in your initial complaint bad faith" [http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2015/03/04/demand-letter VERY SPECIFIC information regarding exactly which parts of your patents have been violated and by what model-legislation-must-be-narrowly-tailored/id=55365/device].

If ===Empowering the FTC===Skeptics of the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC) effectiveness may question how well the commission would handle patent trolls are rampantthat 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, this measure could reduce the amount of FTC found more than 16,000 demand letters they send out and the number of companies they accuse of infringementsent to small businesses. HoweverSubsequently, the FTC prohibited MPHJ from asserting "false or unsubstantiated representations" regarding a patent holders that have a legitimate concern may find it hard to identify 's licensing activity or the exact make potentiality and model imminence of a lawsuit. [https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/cases/150317mphjtechdo.pdf] However, the device(s) FTC did not award any damages to small businesses that infringe upon their fell victim to this patent, especially in the high-tech sector where products are less clearly definedtroll.

'''Interesting facts ==Recommendations on Curbing Patent Troll Activity==Legislation that may deserve extra research'''*Historically, 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 trolls from engaging in abusive or frivolous litigation. The [[Innovation Act]] and [Eastern District of Texas[PATENT Act]] would exceed what is needed to reduce the top activity done by a small number of patent dispute venue. In 2015, 44% of trolls by raising the costs and risks for all legitimate patent litigation was filed holders to enforce their patent rights in Ecourt or defend themselves from larger companies.D 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. Texas For example, most of which legislation like the recently proposed [[STRONG Patents Act]] gives the FTC the power to determine that certain demand letters are in "bad faith" and penalize the companies that issue these letters, but also specifically protects mistakes that were assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrapmade in good faith.