SacramentoBob
Footballguy
There is no evidence in all of history of a patent troll living under a bridge.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Patent Trolls (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter Idiot Boxer
- Start date
krista4
Footballguy
This is patently false. Of course an end-user can be sued for patent infringement, as they are generally the ones doing the infringing through "use". Not knowing it's an infringing use isn't a defense. This is why technology contracts are generally set up to give some non-infringement representations as well as indemnification rights to a buyer/licensee of technology in case they get sued for infringement (provided the buyer/licensee has decent lawyers). In reality a patent troll won't generally be pursuing individual end-users as their use is so insignificant that the damages would not be worth the effort, but it is certainly their method, as IB said, to extort from companies that might have a large number of end-users or if the company itself is the end-user. The method is exactly as IB described.
Last edited by a moderator:
NCCommish
Footballguy
munga30
Checkin' my email
Guessing that by successfully sued you mean a jury finds patents are valid and claims infringed and awards damages, of course not. But that's not the only measure of success. Do you need a Nigerian Prince to have actually sent the money one time for the email scam to be successful?
GroveDiesel
Footballguy
I see what you did there.
Mr. Pickles
Footballguy
Whitetail Hunter
Footballguy
Why does a jury have the power to invalidate a patent? Isn't that what the Patent Office is for? A group of lay people having the power to invalidate a patent in a couple of hours is beyond ridiculous IMO.
Mr. Pickles
Footballguy
GroveDiesel
Footballguy
Then that's better than 90% of patent trolls. Most patent trolls today have never produced a single product and have no intention of ever doing so. They simply buy up a portfolio of general, vague and obvious patents and then start suing. It's the very opposite of what patents were designed for.The other big issue is too many patents are being issued that easily fail the obvious test. The whole "One Click Purchase" patent was a total joke and there are a ton of patents out there like that. This scan to email patent seems totally obvious to me as well. It's not a code or hardware patent, it's a process patent that is totally obvious now that the hardware is capable. It's not innovative in any way. The fact that dozens and dozens of companies implemented the process into their hardware without ever even hearing of this "company" or patent is proof that it's incredibly obvious.
GroveDiesel
Footballguy
My question on suing end users is how do they determine damages? Are they statutory like how music companies can sue infringers for like $1000 per song shared, or do they have to prove some sort of damages?
tdoss
Footballguy
Looks like Disney was trying to get their "piece of the pie"
http://social.entertainment.msn.com/blogs/pop-spy-blog.aspx?feat=a952be98-9309-47a0-b66d-11a4e5151ae2
http://social.entertainment.msn.com/blogs/pop-spy-blog.aspx?feat=a952be98-9309-47a0-b66d-11a4e5151ae2
GroveDiesel
Footballguy
Similar to when they tried to copyright "Seal Team 6"
krista4
Footballguy
Tons of such examples that you aren't going to find publicly. "Success" as defined by many plaintiffs, and all patent trolls, in this realm is getting a settlement based on a lawsuit or the threat of a suit. Every day in this great big ol' country of ours there are successes in this regard. Given that these are generally confidential settlements or settled even before a suit is brought, you aren't going to find them in a Google search.
As explained above, in this as in all litigation, 99+% of claims are settled before a judgment is reached by a court, as companies wish to avoid costly litigation even if they might ultimately win. Every suit is subject to an analysis to determine the expected value of the suit, and if it's more than zero (which it is always is), then there's a price that you will be willing to pay to avoid the legal fees. This is true even moreso in patent litigation which is the costliest form of litigation. I attended a seminar in December (not a patent laywer but needed last-minute CLE
) where data was presented showing the average amount of legal fees for a patent suit that goes all the way to judgment is approaching $10 million. So even in a case where you believe you will ultimately win, there is a great benefit to paying some price up front instead.In terms of a lawsuit against end users that has gone to a judgment for the plaintiff, I'm not sure but asked one of my patent lawyers (he hasn't gotten back to me). Again that's not the measure of success or why end users will pay to avoid it. One end-user case you might take a look at is the RFID World case against Wal-Mart and others back in 2006 or 2007 timeframe. In that instance some of the initial defendants settled (I think Home Depot was one) but a few like Wal-mart and Target decided to fight it. As far as I know that litigation is ongoing (though I could be wrong), but I remember some of the initial indications were not favorable to the defendants.
Mr. Pickles
Footballguy
When I say "end user" I'm referring to consumers, not other companies.
I get the argument about settling to avoid an actual trial, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm asking if Joe Q. Sixpack is being sued in court where a jury awarded the troll damages. If so, I can see how this would be something for the public to be especially concerned about. If not, we can treat it more like a Nigerian scam letter.
B-Deep
Footballguy
Idiot Boxer
Footballguy
care to give a fellow FBG free advise?
GroveDiesel
Footballguy
The problem is that virtually everyone settles because the patent trolls will demand less for a license that it will cost for you to defend yourself. The patent trolls don't WANT to go to court. So they'll demand, say $2000, because they know it would cost you at least twice that just to defend yourself even if you're found innocent. And if you do ignore them and they file suit, they're not going to ask for $2,000, they're going to ask for $20,000 or $200,000. Just ask the lady that ignored the RIAA's threats and had a $100,000+ judgement levied against her for sharing about 100 MP3s.
Otis
Footballguy
I've been waiting since the day I joined for a thread I could meaningfully contribute to. Here we are.
Let me know what questions you all have. I defend troll cases pretty regularly, and have written and lectured on the subject quite a bit. This is right in my wheelhouse....
Pickes> no, Joe Q. Public isn't getting sued for patent infringement by trolls. It's businesses getting sued.
Others> The conundrum is these guys will sue large numbers of defendants on patents either of very questionable validity, or on patents that don't really relate to the accused infringing products and they will stretch the reading of the patents unreasonably to cover those products anyway. They then demand a settlement for a fraction of cost of litigation. Patent litigation through trial can cost anywhere from 3M-5M and upwards. When the trolls first started their shtick en masse in the early 2000s, they would often demand 1-2M. Even though the patents are worth nothing, based on the structure of district court litigation and the expense of a patent case, you'd burn through that in the first year or so. So, most prudent general counsel would open a pocketbook and write a check, disgusted all the way.
Trolls are frequently owned or run by lawyers, often patent lawyers who sold out and went to the dark side. I know a couple of guys who were in-house patent lawyers at prestigious companies just a year ago (took them out for steaks, the slime) and who turned and started up trolls.
Here's a guy who runs a bunch of these entities and has for years -- or rather, here's his house.
Obama's signing into law of the America Invents Act in 2011 implemented a few provisions that are intended to help deal with trolls. Some work relatively well. I have had recent success for large sophisticated tech company clients who have been sued by trolls by filing reexamination proceedings in the patent office. They cost a fraction of litigation, and if the patent is clearly invalid, it makes for a good fight. In a couple of instances, we filed these, and the troll's lawyer called me up the next day suggesting we all drop the case and walk away.
There's new legislation in Congress now called the SHIELD act which is intended to deal with the troll problem more directly. We'll see how far it survives. It turns out the troll lobby is strong and well funded. They fought hard in the AIA legislation to gut some of the strongest anti-troll provisions. They did pretty well.
As for Chet owning part of a troll? It's a business. It's away to make money. Chet's rich and may get richer (though I haven't followed his particular troll's case). Those of us in the business consider it scummy, and I don't think I could live with myself being a plaintiff-side troll lawyer. I've represented patent holders in infringement suits, but they were the inventors -- the guys who generated the technology in their basements and then needed help taking on an industry that took their technology and blew them off (think situations like the movie "Flash of Genius"). Trolls are not that. They are bad actors who typically buy up meaningless patents and start asserting them in unreasonable ways to make a buck. One of the best troll sources was the dot-com bubble burst. Countless companies had started up into technology, got a couple patents, and went belly up. Trolls have bought up lots of those patents for pennies in bankruptcy and went out and sued industries on unreasonable theories.
That's the scoop.
Let me know what questions you all have. I defend troll cases pretty regularly, and have written and lectured on the subject quite a bit. This is right in my wheelhouse....
Pickes> no, Joe Q. Public isn't getting sued for patent infringement by trolls. It's businesses getting sued.
Others> The conundrum is these guys will sue large numbers of defendants on patents either of very questionable validity, or on patents that don't really relate to the accused infringing products and they will stretch the reading of the patents unreasonably to cover those products anyway. They then demand a settlement for a fraction of cost of litigation. Patent litigation through trial can cost anywhere from 3M-5M and upwards. When the trolls first started their shtick en masse in the early 2000s, they would often demand 1-2M. Even though the patents are worth nothing, based on the structure of district court litigation and the expense of a patent case, you'd burn through that in the first year or so. So, most prudent general counsel would open a pocketbook and write a check, disgusted all the way.
Trolls are frequently owned or run by lawyers, often patent lawyers who sold out and went to the dark side. I know a couple of guys who were in-house patent lawyers at prestigious companies just a year ago (took them out for steaks, the slime) and who turned and started up trolls.
Here's a guy who runs a bunch of these entities and has for years -- or rather, here's his house.
Obama's signing into law of the America Invents Act in 2011 implemented a few provisions that are intended to help deal with trolls. Some work relatively well. I have had recent success for large sophisticated tech company clients who have been sued by trolls by filing reexamination proceedings in the patent office. They cost a fraction of litigation, and if the patent is clearly invalid, it makes for a good fight. In a couple of instances, we filed these, and the troll's lawyer called me up the next day suggesting we all drop the case and walk away.
There's new legislation in Congress now called the SHIELD act which is intended to deal with the troll problem more directly. We'll see how far it survives. It turns out the troll lobby is strong and well funded. They fought hard in the AIA legislation to gut some of the strongest anti-troll provisions. They did pretty well.
As for Chet owning part of a troll? It's a business. It's away to make money. Chet's rich and may get richer (though I haven't followed his particular troll's case). Those of us in the business consider it scummy, and I don't think I could live with myself being a plaintiff-side troll lawyer. I've represented patent holders in infringement suits, but they were the inventors -- the guys who generated the technology in their basements and then needed help taking on an industry that took their technology and blew them off (think situations like the movie "Flash of Genius"). Trolls are not that. They are bad actors who typically buy up meaningless patents and start asserting them in unreasonable ways to make a buck. One of the best troll sources was the dot-com bubble burst. Countless companies had started up into technology, got a couple patents, and went belly up. Trolls have bought up lots of those patents for pennies in bankruptcy and went out and sued industries on unreasonable theories.
That's the scoop.
Johnny Rock
Footballguy
Fascinating stuff. Love the Judge's Star Trek references and how he found ways to screw the bad guys. Keep us updated please if you hear anything as it appears many are on the edge of their seats for the fireworks in the event of an Appeal.
FootballDummy
Footballguy
Mr. Pickles
Footballguy
St. Louis Bob
Footballguy
GroveDiesel
Footballguy
Krista actually did too.
Mr. Pickles
Footballguy
Krista thinks corporations are people, my friend.
Jobber
Footballguy
This sounds like a good start: http://money.cnn.com/2013/06/04/technology/innovation/obama-patent-trolls/index.html?source=cnn_bin
NEW YORK (CNNMoney)
The Obama administration issued a stern rebuke of so-called "patent trolls" Tuesday, in an attempt to stop those whom the White House says manipulate the patent system for undue financial gain.
The White House directed the United States Patent and Trademark Office to take five new actions that would help stem the rising tide of patent-related lawsuits tying up the court system. Many patent-holding companies with no intention of ever releasing products have made an entire business model out of suing other companies for patent infringement.
The USPTO will now require that patent-holding companies disclose who really stands to benefit from a lawsuit and identify the ultimate patent holder for each application and assigned patent. In many cases, patent-holding entities will create shell companies that allow them to hide their identities, the scope of their portfolios, and connections with other patent-holders.
The White House also wants the USPTO to train examiners to cut down on overly broad patent claims, educate small inventors about how to deal with patent trolls, and expand its outreach to inventors to help develop policies and laws.
In addition, the administration ordered a review of the U.S. International Trade Commission, which has the ability to ban imports of goods deemed to infringe on patents. Patent-holding companies are increasingly taking their claims to the ITC, and the White House would like their enforcement decisions to be made more transparent and efficient.
The Obama administration has made patent reform a priority, passing the first major overhaul of the patent system since 1952. That 2011 bill allowed the USPTO to set its own fees, gave patents to the first inventor to file a claim, and aimed to help keep some cases out of the courts. But the president clearly wants more to be done.
On a Google (GOOG, Fortune 500) Hangout in February, Obama said patent trolls abuse a system that was designed to protect inventions and foster innovation.
"They don't actually produce anything themselves," Obama said. "They're just trying to essentially leverage and hijack somebody else's idea and see if they can extort some money out of them."
Related story: Vermont fights back against 'patent trolls'
Intellectual Ventures is a notorious example of a "patent troll" company. The research firm, based around the corner from Microsoft's headquarters in the Seattle area, acquires thousands of patents and has a research lab to develop its own. Yet it has no products to speak of. The company engages in constant patent litigation, and many tech companies have accused Intellectual Ventures of stifling innovation.
Intellectual Ventures said it is reviewing the administration's actions but declined comment for this story.
The White House also asked Congress to pass laws that would have an even greater impact to curb "abusive" lawsuits.
Among the recommendations are protections for consumers sued by patent trolls, ensuring that the ITC has flexibility to hire qualified judges, and awarding attorney's fees for court filings deemed to be "abusive."
Many technology giants have supported the administration's actions on patent reform. Tech companies are among the most-sued firms by patent trolls, and many have annual legal fees that outweigh their yearly spending on research and development. Patent lawsuits involving Apple (AAPL, Fortune 500), Samsung, Google, Oracle (ORCL, Fortune 500), Nokia (NOK), Microsoft (MSFT, Fortune 500) make daily headlines, often resulting in payouts totaling billions of dollars.
Google, whose chairman Eric Schmidt is an outspoken friend of the Obama administration, has stated that it will no longer proactively sue other companies for abuse of open-source software patents. A Google spokesman said the company welcomes the White House's actions on Tuesday.
The Association for Competitive Technology industry association, of which Microsoft, Apple, Intel (INTC, Fortune 500) and Facebook (FB) are sponsors, praised the executive actions.
"The patent system is critical to the innovation economy, but patent trolls are endangering startups around the world," said Morgan Reed, ACT's executive director, in a statement.
NEW YORK (CNNMoney)
The Obama administration issued a stern rebuke of so-called "patent trolls" Tuesday, in an attempt to stop those whom the White House says manipulate the patent system for undue financial gain.
The White House directed the United States Patent and Trademark Office to take five new actions that would help stem the rising tide of patent-related lawsuits tying up the court system. Many patent-holding companies with no intention of ever releasing products have made an entire business model out of suing other companies for patent infringement.
The USPTO will now require that patent-holding companies disclose who really stands to benefit from a lawsuit and identify the ultimate patent holder for each application and assigned patent. In many cases, patent-holding entities will create shell companies that allow them to hide their identities, the scope of their portfolios, and connections with other patent-holders.
The White House also wants the USPTO to train examiners to cut down on overly broad patent claims, educate small inventors about how to deal with patent trolls, and expand its outreach to inventors to help develop policies and laws.
In addition, the administration ordered a review of the U.S. International Trade Commission, which has the ability to ban imports of goods deemed to infringe on patents. Patent-holding companies are increasingly taking their claims to the ITC, and the White House would like their enforcement decisions to be made more transparent and efficient.
The Obama administration has made patent reform a priority, passing the first major overhaul of the patent system since 1952. That 2011 bill allowed the USPTO to set its own fees, gave patents to the first inventor to file a claim, and aimed to help keep some cases out of the courts. But the president clearly wants more to be done.
On a Google (GOOG, Fortune 500) Hangout in February, Obama said patent trolls abuse a system that was designed to protect inventions and foster innovation.
"They don't actually produce anything themselves," Obama said. "They're just trying to essentially leverage and hijack somebody else's idea and see if they can extort some money out of them."
Related story: Vermont fights back against 'patent trolls'
Intellectual Ventures is a notorious example of a "patent troll" company. The research firm, based around the corner from Microsoft's headquarters in the Seattle area, acquires thousands of patents and has a research lab to develop its own. Yet it has no products to speak of. The company engages in constant patent litigation, and many tech companies have accused Intellectual Ventures of stifling innovation.
Intellectual Ventures said it is reviewing the administration's actions but declined comment for this story.
The White House also asked Congress to pass laws that would have an even greater impact to curb "abusive" lawsuits.
Among the recommendations are protections for consumers sued by patent trolls, ensuring that the ITC has flexibility to hire qualified judges, and awarding attorney's fees for court filings deemed to be "abusive."
Many technology giants have supported the administration's actions on patent reform. Tech companies are among the most-sued firms by patent trolls, and many have annual legal fees that outweigh their yearly spending on research and development. Patent lawsuits involving Apple (AAPL, Fortune 500), Samsung, Google, Oracle (ORCL, Fortune 500), Nokia (NOK), Microsoft (MSFT, Fortune 500) make daily headlines, often resulting in payouts totaling billions of dollars.
Google, whose chairman Eric Schmidt is an outspoken friend of the Obama administration, has stated that it will no longer proactively sue other companies for abuse of open-source software patents. A Google spokesman said the company welcomes the White House's actions on Tuesday.
The Association for Competitive Technology industry association, of which Microsoft, Apple, Intel (INTC, Fortune 500) and Facebook (FB) are sponsors, praised the executive actions.
"The patent system is critical to the innovation economy, but patent trolls are endangering startups around the world," said Morgan Reed, ACT's executive director, in a statement.
Chaka
Footballguy
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
Like Otis, I've done my fair share of patent defense work against non-practicing entities. But I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with NPEs. I could see innovation being stifled if the only people able to monetize an idea were the companies with the resources to produce the product.
The phenomenon of asking for low value settlements below the cost of litigation for dubious claims is a problem that is larger than the patent field. We can debate whether the British "loser pays" model is better for litigation (I have mixed feelings). But I don't really see a reason to make a special rule for patent cases. Maybe the answer is stricter Rule 11 scrutiny for complaints.
The phenomenon of asking for low value settlements below the cost of litigation for dubious claims is a problem that is larger than the patent field. We can debate whether the British "loser pays" model is better for litigation (I have mixed feelings). But I don't really see a reason to make a special rule for patent cases. Maybe the answer is stricter Rule 11 scrutiny for complaints.
Otis
Footballguy
The White House stepping in on this is a big move. There was also a new episode of This American Life last week (When Patents Attack Part Two) if you're into podcasting that beats up on the trolls again. Additionally, the Vermont AG brought a consumer action against a patent troll in Vermont -- we're starting to see all sorts of attacks on trolls.
This is finally now the focus of national attention and in the mainstream media. Things have been shifting that way in recent years, but this is it. It's a pretty
moment for patent lawyers, and tech companies generally.
This is finally now the focus of national attention and in the mainstream media. Things have been shifting that way in recent years, but this is it. It's a pretty
moment for patent lawyers, and tech companies generally.
pittstownkiller
Footballguy
There are always DWI cases for you.The White House stepping in on this is a big move. There was also a new episode of This American Life last week (When Patents Attack Part Two) if you're into podcasting that beats up on the trolls again. Additionally, the Vermont AG brought a consumer action against a patent troll in Vermont -- we're starting to see all sorts of attacks on trolls. This is finally now the focus of national attention and in the mainstream media. Things have been shifting that way in recent years, but this is it. It's a pretty
Otis
Footballguy
The problem of trolls, I've always contended, comes not from substantive patent law reform but from patent litigation reform. You can't easily weaken substantive patent rights for one class of patent holders without harming well intentioned patent holders in similar classes. The best example is that most reform that crushes trolls can also crush universities. Everyone agrees that's not a good result.
So the best way to tackle the problem is in patent lit reform. The troll leverage is all about the litigation model, which typically involves a huge expense stretched out over several years of discovery before a judge will consider the merits--the result being that, even if you have an airtight non-infringement defense, it won't be heard until 3 years and 3M down the road. So you move up the substantive parts of a case. The recent bill, I think it's the senate, called the "Patent Abuse Reduction Act," has a provision for moving up Markman hearings and staying discovery on all other issues until after the court gives a claim construction order. So, in cases where you have a really strong non-infringement defense, you could have the court decide claim construction and, if a clear win, you bring a summary judgment motion immediately. That potentially gets you out of the case in 9-12 months and after doing no or limited discovery.
To me that has always been the right answer without deviating from the American Rule on fees/costs and other items that are very ingrained in our system.
Otis
Footballguy
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
9-12 months is the norm in the Rocket Docket. Also less than ideal. But yeah, I've always wondered why even courts with "Patent Rules" with fixed dates for contentions didn't do claim construction first.
Otis
Footballguy
Some judges are nowadays. Judge Davis in EDTX has been holding mini-Markmans early in the case in cases where the parties contend the claim construction issues can be dispositive. I handled a "pre-Markman hearing" in Chicago before Judge Grady -- he'll regularly do these, sometimes as part of a mediation process. In our case it helped that we could get up very early in the case and show the judge--and the patent holder--that the patent was likely going to be invalid. Got a big client out for 5 figures as a result.
So, some judges are actually doing this. But not enough. That provision applied on a mandatory basis nationwide would be a big improvement I think.
Last edited by a moderator:
WampusCat43
Footballguy
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
It would also help with my own pet peeve, which is the assertion of way more claims / patents than can possibly be tried. Everyone knows that 70% of the claims in a complaint are going to be dropped eventually. If we could get them out before discovery, that would be a huge improvement, even if you can't get a full SJ.
Some of the improvements I've heard before. Every attempt to increase "patent quality" at the PTO has died a fiery death.
Some of the improvements I've heard before. Every attempt to increase "patent quality" at the PTO has died a fiery death.
Didn't think that episode of TAL was too convincing. Used very broad strokes. The one incident they got into the guy lost out on his patent seemingly because of a technicality. If the patent had been filed correctly would Carbonite have had to pay up? TAL made it seem like patent "trolls" don't really help the little guy but then go on to mention how that guy stood to make tens' of millions of dollars.
GroveDiesel
Footballguy
If anyone wants more entertaining reading on patent trolls getting crushed, Google Newegg and patent trolls.
Newegg has pledged to never ever settle with a patent troll. They've now destroyed 2 of them at trial and basically invalidated their patents at the same time.
Newegg has pledged to never ever settle with a patent troll. They've now destroyed 2 of them at trial and basically invalidated their patents at the same time.
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
The NewEgg example is a reason why I think some of the fear mongering is overblown. Patent litigation is also expensive for the trolls. It's true that they typically use a firm on retainer, but firms have to have some form of risk avoidance as well.
But beyond the cost, there's a huge downside to litigating a patent infringement suit if the defendant has ANY invalidity case. Because once a patent is invalidated in one action, it's invalid across the board. It's easy to send a cease and desist letter. It's a significantly bigger gamble to risk invalidating the patent by filing an action. In many cases, a bigger risk than that being taken by a big company because they can often design around the patent and because a sketchy patent is unlikely to be a foundational patent that will generate large damages.
But beyond the cost, there's a huge downside to litigating a patent infringement suit if the defendant has ANY invalidity case. Because once a patent is invalidated in one action, it's invalid across the board. It's easy to send a cease and desist letter. It's a significantly bigger gamble to risk invalidating the patent by filing an action. In many cases, a bigger risk than that being taken by a big company because they can often design around the patent and because a sketchy patent is unlikely to be a foundational patent that will generate large damages.
GroveDiesel
Footballguy
The single biggest improvement to the process may be how they've changed the process to challenge patents at the USPTO. Third parties can now challenge directly and fairly cheaply. The process is supposed to be somewhat quick and should cost "only" about $30k.
Otis
Footballguy
It's not. You'll never have a perfect PTO examination process, because an examiner is never going to have the entire universe of information. The PTO can only do so much. But me when I'm defending a litigation? There are some big clients who pay me to scorch the earth--we perform extensive searches and light up the phone lines of everyone who was deep in the technology at the time. We chase lead after lead and unearth some amazing, and sometimes very obscure, prior art. These are clients spending millions to defend a case -- no way can the PTO invest those same resources for every patent application. So you're never going to have a perfect process.
I do think patent quality and examination quality are increasing. In part there was just a blip in the graph during the dot com boom. The PTO was flooded with applications to tons of technologies that were very new, and business methods suddenly became fair game. In those years a bunch of junky patents got through. Junky patents will always get issued, but there was a glut in those years. Those are the patents the trolls have been exploiting.
So I think the problem is very much a here and now problem and will in part cure itself over time just based on those dot com era patents expiring. But it will never disappear completely, and you'll never have perfect examination at the PTO. Just not feasible.
Otis
Footballguy
I think there are a lot of details this episode and the first episode covered broadly and got plain wrong--they clearly didn't run the script/episode by a patent lawyer before they aired it. But on the whole, I thought it was a pretty fair picture for a lay person, and to me is most valuable for proving the point that the patent troll issue is now busting into the mainstream. You could see the handwriting on the wall when the first episode aired two years ago, but now this coinciding with the White House, legislation, etc., and I think we're full-bore there.
PlasmaDogPlasma
Footballguy
Ramsay Hunt Experience, isn't that why the trolling firms have began shaking down companies lower on the food chain as discussed near the beginning of the thread? They're even less likely to be able to afford the trial process.-----"Screw them. Seriously, screw them. You can quote me on that." - Newegg Chief Legal Officer Lee ChengWell said.
Last edited by a moderator:
Otis
Footballguy
You mean they typically use a firm on a contingency agreement. And that's true that the firms have some level of risk avoidance, but the types of firms doing that work are in it for a quick pay day and typically are much more willing to pursue crappy cases. They're also not sophisticated enough in some instances to even realize it's a crappy case in the first place.
The invalidity risk is sort of "meh" for them generally too. It's tough to invalidate a patent unless you've got REALLY good prior art.
However, in cases where you do have really good art, the mechanisms now available under the AIA are gaining steam. We've used the new inter partes reviews in multiple cases recently, and the troll's lawyer's call us up one business day after we file them and say "gee, Otis, we've reconsidered this and my client is willing to drop the district court litigation against your client without any payment." You don't say...
Sarnoff
Footballguy
Otis
Footballguy
X
That's just PTO fees. With lawyer time you're still looking at north of 200k, and more likely 400k-500k or more, to take one of those PTO proceedings all the way through. That said, it's still a crapload cheaper than litigation.
Ramsay Hunt Experience
Footballguy
All should keep in mind that Otis is a successful patent litigator and I'm failed patent litigator. So take anything I say with a grain of salt.
