Patent Trolls - Revision history

Juliette.richert at 16:09, 24 March 2017

2017-03-24T16:09:49Z

Carlin at 21:59, 2 September 2016

2016-09-02T21:59:13Z

MarcelaInteriano: Created page with "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 Assert..."

2016-06-01T21:52:32Z

Created page with "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 Assert..."

imported>Jackie at 21:33, 14 March 2016

2016-03-14T21:33:46Z

imported>Jackie at 21:31, 14 March 2016

2016-03-14T21:31:49Z

imported>Jackie at 21:31, 14 March 2016

2016-03-14T21:31:35Z

imported>Jackie at 21:31, 14 March 2016

2016-03-14T21:31:03Z

imported>Jackie at 21:03, 14 March 2016

2016-03-14T21:03:43Z

imported>Jackie at 20:45, 14 March 2016

2016-03-14T20:45:17Z

imported>Jackie at 20:23, 14 March 2016

2016-03-14T20:23:26Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:09, 24 March 2017
Line 15:		Line 15:
	[[Category: Internal]]		[[Category: Internal]]
	[[Internal Classification: Legacy\| ]]		[[Internal Classification: Legacy\| ]]
		+	[[Category:Patent]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:59, 2 September 2016
Line 13:		Line 13:
	*The Regents of the University of California v. Micro Therapeutics Inc. et al		*The Regents of the University of California v. Micro Therapeutics Inc. et al
	*Cambridge University Press et al v. Patton et al		*Cambridge University Press et al v. Patton et al
		+	[[Category: Internal]]
		+	[[Internal Classification: Legacy\| ]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:52, 1 June 2016
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	Back to [[The Truth ~~Behind~~ Patent Trolls]]	+	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.		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.

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:33, 14 March 2016
Line 13:		Line 13:
	*The Regents of the University of California v. Micro Therapeutics Inc. et al		*The Regents of the University of California v. Micro Therapeutics Inc. et al
	*Cambridge University Press et al v. Patton et al		*Cambridge University Press et al v. Patton et al
−
−	~~'''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: dismissal
−	*30 Claim defendant win
−	*11 Claim win: default judgement
−	*4 Procedural: 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 win

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:31, 14 March 2016
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	Back to [[The Truth ~~About~~ Patent Trolls]]	+	Back to [[The Truth Behind 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.		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.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 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.
-Hypothesis: Patent trolls will generally push for settlements and jury trials.
+'''Hypothesis: Patent trolls will generally push for settlements and jury trials.'''
 In all of the cases eDekka filed in 2015, each one asked for trial by jury.
@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
 *The Regents of the University of California v. Micro Therapeutics Inc. et al
 *Cambridge University Press et al v. Patton et al

← Older revision		Revision as of 21:03, 14 March 2016
Line 4:		Line 4:

	In all of the cases eDekka filed in 2015, each one asked for trial by jury.		In all of the cases eDekka filed in 2015, each one asked for trial by jury.
		+	However, another company that is considered a big patent troll, Oberalis does not file for trial by jury.

	In cases that involve educational institutions (PAEs/NPEs but not patent trolls), the educational institution doesn't ask for a jury trial. In fact, the company being sued responds to the complaint with a jury demand. Some examples of this:		In cases that involve educational institutions (PAEs/NPEs but not patent trolls), the educational institution doesn't ask for a jury trial. In fact, the company being sued responds to the complaint with a jury demand. Some examples of this:

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:45, 14 March 2016
Line 4:		Line 4:

	In all of the cases eDekka filed in 2015, each one asked for trial by jury.		In all of the cases eDekka filed in 2015, each one asked for trial by jury.
		+
		+	In cases that involve educational institutions (PAEs/NPEs but not patent trolls), the educational institution doesn't ask for a jury trial. In fact, the company being sued responds to the complaint with a jury demand. Some examples of this:
		+	*Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation v. Apple Inc
		+	*Trustees of Boston University v. Everlight Electronics Co
		+	*The Regents of the University of California v. Micro Therapeutics Inc. et al
		+	*Cambridge University Press et al v. Patton et al

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:23, 14 March 2016
Line 2:		Line 2:

	Hypothesis: Patent trolls will generally push for settlements and jury trials.		Hypothesis: Patent trolls will generally push for settlements and jury trials.
		+
		+	In all of the cases eDekka filed in 2015, each one asked for trial by jury.