Difference between revisions of "The Truth Behind Patent Trolls"
(Created page with "No agreed-upon definition of patent troll exists. The term patent troll is used interchangeably with the terms non-practicing entities (NPEs) and patent assertion entities (PA...") |
|||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
Patent trolls may also target a slew of companies that tangentially intersect the sphere of the patent. One famous example of a patent troll is MPHJ Technology Investment, 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. | Patent trolls may also target a slew of companies that tangentially intersect the sphere of the patent. One famous example of a patent troll is MPHJ Technology Investment, 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. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Top 10 PAEs in 2015, according to [http://unifiedpatents.com/2015-year-end-report/ Unified] | ||
| + | |||
| + | {| class="wikitable" border=0 | ||
| + | |+ align="center" size="14px"|'''Patent Assertion Entities Filings, 2015''' | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | | scope="col" align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Company Name''' | ||
| + | | scope="col" align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Total Lawsuits Filed¹''' | ||
| + | | scope="col" align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Lawsuits Filed in Eastern District of Texas¹''' | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | | align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"| eDekka LLC || align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"|101 || align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"|101 | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | | align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"| Data Carriers LLC || align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"|85 || align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"|85 | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | | align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"| Shipping and Transit LLC || align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"|69 || align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"|0² | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | | align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"| Cryptopeak Solutions LLC || align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"|66 || align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"|66 | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | | align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"| Hawk Technology Systems LLC || align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"|61 || align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"|3 | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | | align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"| Rothschild Connected Devices Innovations LLC || align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"|60 || align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"|59 | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | | align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"| Wetro Lan LLC || align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"|56 || align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"|55 | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | | align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"| Loramax LLC || align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"|50 || align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"|50 | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | | align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"| Genaville LLC || align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"|50 || align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"|50 | ||
| + | |- | ||
| + | | align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"| Oberalis LLC || align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"|50 || align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"|50 | ||
| + | |} | ||
| + | |||
| + | ¹ Data aggregated via LexMachina | ||
| + | |||
| + | ² 79% of cases filed in Southern District of Florida | ||
Revision as of 13:00, 9 June 2016
No agreed-upon definition of patent troll exists. The term patent troll is used interchangeably with the terms non-practicing entities (NPEs) and patent assertion entities (PAEs). Despite similar sounding names, several key differences exist between the three terms.
Non-practicing entities(NPEs) own patents, but do not necessarily create products out of these patents. This behavior is common; 95% of patents are never used commercially [1]. Universities are examples of non-practicing entities. Faculty members may file for patents based on their work in a laboratory and receive a patent. Then, those faculty move on to a different project and do not use the patent they hold.
Patent assertion entities (PAEs) are a type of non-practicing entity that generate a majority of their revenue through licensing patents they own. For example, a large firm may buy up a thousand patents. Instead of creating products derived from those patents, they license these patents to other firms that wish to create those products. If another firm infringes on a patent, the patent-assertion entity may send a demand letter to the company with a warning. The demand letter warns the infringer that they are subject to a lawsuit if they do not acquire proper licensing of a patent. These demand letters serve as the tipping point between patent assertion entities and patent trolls. Whereas PAEs assert the fair value of their patent against the infringer, patent trolls inflate the amount of damages felt as a result of infringement. Patent trolls may threaten a firm with exorbitant lawsuit costs, and then provide a quick way out of a lawsuit through a license. The supposed infringer, fearful of a high lawsuit costs, may just pay the licensing fee. However, the supposed infringer may not even have infringed on any patent.
Patent trolls may also target a slew of companies that tangentially intersect the sphere of the patent. One famous example of a patent troll is MPHJ Technology Investment, 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.
Top 10 PAEs in 2015, according to Unified
| Company Name | Total Lawsuits Filed¹ | Lawsuits Filed in Eastern District of Texas¹ |
| eDekka LLC | 101 | 101 |
| Data Carriers LLC | 85 | 85 |
| Shipping and Transit LLC | 69 | 0² |
| Cryptopeak Solutions LLC | 66 | 66 |
| Hawk Technology Systems LLC | 61 | 3 |
| Rothschild Connected Devices Innovations LLC | 60 | 59 |
| Wetro Lan LLC | 56 | 55 |
| Loramax LLC | 50 | 50 |
| Genaville LLC | 50 | 50 |
| Oberalis LLC | 50 | 50 |
¹ Data aggregated via LexMachina
² 79% of cases filed in Southern District of Florida
