Changes

Jump to navigation Jump to search
3,962 bytes added ,  22:07, 26 April 2012
no edit summary
===Differences in Patents and Enforcement===
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.
===Other Fairy-tale Monsters===
*Chien, C.V. 2008. Of trolls, davids, goliaths, and kings: Narratives and evidence in the litigation of high-tech patents. NCL Rev., vol. 87, 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. 62. [http://www.edegan.com/pdfs/Chien%20(2010)%20-%20From%20Arms%20Race%20to%20Marketplace.pdf pdf]
*Chuang, A. 2006. Fixing the failures of software patent protection: Deterring patent trolling by applying industry-specific patentability standards. S. Cal. Interdisc. LJ, vol. 16, p. 215. [http://www.edegan.com/pdfs/Chuang%20(2006)%20-%20Fixing%20the%20Failures%20of%20Software%20Patent%20Protection.pdf pdf]
*Cooper Feldman, R. Ewing, T. 2011. The giants among us. [http://www.edegan.com/pdfs/CooperFeldman%20Ewing%20(2011)%20-%20The%20Giants%20Among%20Us.pdf pdf]
*Eddings, R. 2005. Trolls and titans take fight to top court. Loy. Consumer L. Rev., vol. 18, p. 503. [http://www.edegan.com/pdfs/Eddings%20(2005)%20-%20Trolls%20and%20Titans%20Take%20Fight%20to%20Top%20Court.pdf pdf]
*Cotropia, C.A. 2009. The individual inventor motif in the age of the patent troll. Yale JL & Tech., vol. 12, p. 52. [http://www.edegan.com/pdfs/Cotropia%20(2009)%20-%20The%20individual%20inventor%20motif%20in%20the%20age%20of%20the%20patent%20troll.pdf pdf]
*Diessel, B.H. 2007. Trolling for trolls: The pitfalls of the emerging market competition requirement for permanent injunctions in patent cases post-ebay. Mich. L. Rev., vol. 106, p. 305. [http://www.edegan.com/pdfs/Diessel%20(2007)%20-%20Trolling%20for%20Trolls.pdf pdf]
*d’Incelli, G. 2008. Has ebay spelled the end of patent troll abuses-paying the toll: The rise (and fall) of the patent troll. U. Miami Bus. L. Rev., vol. 17, p. 343. [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]
*Farrand, J.R., Shapiro, V.C., Abbott, P.A., Stothers, C.M., Weisberg, S.D., Killworth, R.A. 2011. Judicial reform of patent litigation in the usa. Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice, vol. 6 (6), pp. 381-395. [http://www.edegan.com/pdfs/Farrand%20(2011)%20-%20Judicial%20reform%20of%20patent%20litigation%20in%20the%20USA.pdf pdf]
*Ferrill, E.D. 2004. Patent investment trusts: Let’s build a pit to catch the patent trolls. NCJL & Tech., vol. 6, p. 367. [http://www.edegan.com/pdfs/Ferrill%20(2004)%20-%20Patent%20Investment%20Trusts.pdf pdf]
*Jones, M. 2006. Permanent injunction, a remedy by any other name is patently not the same: How ebay v. mercexchange affects the patent right of non-practicing entities. Geo. Mason L. Rev., vol. 14, p. 1035. [http://www.edegan.com/pdfs/Jones%20(2006)%20-%20Permanent%20Injunction%20A%20Remedy%20by%20Any%20Other%20Name%20is%20Patently%20Not%20the%20Same.pdf pdf]
*Layne-Farrar, A. 2012. The brothers grimm book of business models: A survey of literature and developments in patent acquisition and litigation. [http://www.edegan.com/pdfs/LayneFarrar%20(2012)%20-%20The%20Brothers%20Grimm%20Book%20of%20Business%20Models.pdf pdf]
*Layne-Farrar, A.S. Schmidt, K. 2009. Licensing complementary patents:‘patent trolls’, market structure, and ‘excessive’royalties. [http://www.edegan.com/pdfs/LayneFarrar%20Schmidt%20(2009)%20-%20Licensing%20Complementary%20Patents.pdf pdf]
*Lemley, M. 2011. Contracting around liability rules. [http://www.edegan.com/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. 18, p. 611. [http://www.edegan.com/pdfs/Lemley%20(2011)%20-%20Contracting%20Around%20Liability%20Rules.pdf pdf]
*Lu, J. 2011a. The economics and controversies of nonpracticing entities (npes): How npes and defensive patent aggregators will change license market.
*Lu, J. 2011b. Have non-practicing entities (npe’s) been overcompensated?
*Luman III, J.F. Dodson, C.L. 2006. No longer a myth, the emergence of the patent troll: Stifling innovation, increasing litigation, and extorting billions. Intell. Prop. Tech. LJ, vol. 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]
*Magliocca, G.N. 2006. Blackberries and barnyards: Patent trolls and the perils of innovation. Notre Dame L. Rev., vol. 82, p. 1809. [http://www.edegan.com/pdfs/Magliocca%20(2006)%20-%20Blackberries%20and%20barnyards.pdf pdf]
*Maughan, E. 2012. 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]
*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]
Anonymous user

Navigation menu