Tag Archives: patent trolls

Responsible Patent Licensing is focus of Wall Street event

Not all patent licensing businesses are alike.

“NPE 2016: The Business of Responsible Licensing,” scheduled for March 22 at the Convene conference in New York, will differentiate patent monetization companies by examining their business models, strategies and the managers who run them.

The conference will focus on the non-practicing entity (NPE) industry, including both public and private companies. In 2015, the NPE 2016 brought together leaders from the licensing company sector and the wider corporate IP and investment communities to discuss the challenges and opportunities of running a patent licensing business, especially in today’s challenging climate.

NPE 2016 is the only gathering that examines how NPEs operate and contribute to the innovation and the economy.

3J6A3349Moderator-led panel discussions with audience Q&A at the end of each will be featured. Sessions are designed to focus on the specifics of building and running successful NPE, as well as on the opportunities available to investors.

Beyond Monetization

This year’s sessions will consider licensing best practices, building and managing a patent portfolio, licensing dos and don’ts, litigating in Europe once the Unified Patent Court has been launched, licensing opportunities in new sectors and moving IP commercialization beyond monetization.

Last year’s attendees included:

• NPE executives
• In-house counsel and legal directors
• Private practice lawyers
• Licensing executives
• Patent brokers
• IP policy professionals
• Investment professionals

IP CloseUp readers who use the promo code IPCLOSEUP before February 19 are eligible for a $150 discount off of the full $895 registration.

For more information about NPE 2016 or to register, go here.

For he full program, go here.

 

websiteimage

Image source: convene.com; iam.com

 

Quinn: Patent PERPs are the real bullies of the licensing world

A disturbing article by IP Watchdog’s Gene Quinn asks “Who are the real bullies of the patent world?” It’s not patent trolls. They are far less of a problem than Patent PERPs – Practicing Entities that Refuse to Pay.

The founder and editor of IP Watchdog, one of the leading IP blogs, pointed a finger at reluctant patent licensees today in “A Patent Owner Defending Property Rights is NOT a Bully,” an article that attempts to reveal who are the real villains of patent licensing.

Exhibit One in Quinn’s indictment of the twisted rhetoric that surrounds patent licensing is Colleen Chien, a Santa Clara University law professor and former senior IP adviser to President Obama. Professor Chien wrote in the The Wall Street Journal recently, “that small businesses may want to simply ignore letters they receive from patent owners alleging infringement of a patent.”

Ignore the Nuisance

“This is rather astonishing for several reasons,” says Quinn. “First, a patent is a right granted by the federal government that is supposed to imagesbe legally presumed to be valid. A recently departed senior adviser to the President who is advising potential infringers that they should just ignore notices telling them they are infringing speaks volumes about how the Executive Branch views patents and patent owners. Once upon a time patents and inventors were very highly regarded in our society, today they are seen as a nuisance that can and probably should be ignored, even by the White House apparently…”

“A patent owner that seeks to prevent another from infringing is NOT a bully, period. A patent owner that takes action to prevent infringement is merely protecting the property right they have been granted; a right purposefully granted by the federal government after a lengthy examination process. It should be self-evident to everyone that you cannot be a bully when you are standing up to protect a right you have been given. It is utter nonsense to even suggest that a patent owner seeking vindication from the trampling of rights could ever in any fair way be characterized as a bully…”

PERPs are Perpetrators 

“Frankly, if we want to be perfectly honest about the state of the industry, we would be talking about those Patent using Entities that Refuse to Pay (PERPs),” concludes Quinn. “Thanks to the confluence of patent reform and Supreme Court precedent the people who are getting bullied the most are patent owners. These PERPs simply ignore all inquiries even from those with large portfolios and valid patents that are being infringed. They engage in a game of efficient infringement, or so it is called. Efficient infringement is such a sanitary way to say – willfully stealing without paying.

“With the deck so substantially stacked against the patent owner, companies know that if they simply ignore all inquiries, both legitimate and those smaller number that are extortion, they can willfully infringe patented technology without having to pay anything. lady-justice-head-sand-ignoranceSo why pay? That is efficient infringement; a cold business calculation that results in the patent owner being screwed.”

Negative Right

Efficient infringement means that given the risk-reward of using someone else’s invention, it is economically viable for most companies, in many industries, to infringe patents at will most of the time. It’s like a parking violation. First, they have to catch me breaking the law. What are the chances? And if they do, paying the price of the ticket is often easier (and cheaper) for large companies than obeying the law.

A patent is a negative right – the right to sue to protect an owner’s intellectual property, an invention. A patent suit is a costly and time-consuming process, and defendants know that. Patents are meant to be used (enforced) where appropriate. Quinn is saying that the behavior of those refusing to pay a license (PERPs) – and who invent delaying tactics to avoid doing so – is ethically questionable, legally suspect and damaging to innovation.

For the full IP Watchdog article go here.

Image source: ipwatchdog.com

Google’s patent buying program, an apparent success, is thinly reported

Better than one-in-four of the patents offered to Google for purchase as a result of its Patent Purchase Promotion in May were acquired by the search engine.

The only article we could find about IP buying experiment’s results appeared in IEEE Spectrum, which is published by a professional association of engineers. IP CloseUp has learned that IEEE Spectrum obtained the purchase data directly from Google. A Google search did not reveal other media coverage of the results.

The magazine article, “Google Tries to Keep Patents Out of the Hands of Trolls,” states that the search engine purchased 28% of the patents offered to it. This buy-rate seems high considering the poor quality of most patents being offered to most buyers. It is comparable to that of Intellectual Ventures in the early years (2003-2006) when it bought much of what it was shown, but typically at about $40,000 per patent.

“Google’s Patent Purchase Promotion,” reports IEEE Spectrum, “which the company says received ‘thousands’ of submissions during a three-week window [May 8 – May 27], may prompt similar experiments in keeping patents out of the hands of what it considers the bad guys of intellectual property.”

The experimental program was an attempt to intercept patents that individual inventors, operating companies, and others may have otherwise sold to organizations that don’t make products but rather use the patents to extract license fees from operating companies, which do… The program offered a chance for anybody to sell patents to Google “at a price set by the patent holder.”

“Google wound up buying 28 percent of the offered patents that it deemed relevant to its business, according to Kurt Brasch, the company’s senior product licensing manager,” reported the magazine.

GoogPatSales

The median price of the patents sold to Google, excluding those offered at US $1 billion or more, was $150,000, and the compant paid prices ranging from $3,000 to $250,000.

IP Watchdog and others are less certain about whether the program is designed to thwart trolls and enhance innovation, or to improve Google’s patent position.

The IEEE Spectrum article can be found here.

A summary of Google’s Patent Purchase Program can be found here.

 

Image source: IEEE Spectrum

 

 

The future of IP will be examined at the 10th IP Summit in Berlin

Uncertainty is putting pressure on patents, trademarks and copyrights. All are facing more scrutiny and a challenging future.  

Scrutinizing these fundamental issues on December 3rd and 4th in Berlin will be more than 600 IP holders, executives and investors attending the Intellectual Property Summit. Organized by Premier Cercle, it will be the tenth edition of the popular conference, held previously in Paris and Brussels.

This year’s Summit will attempt to deconstruct global IP trends and explore the future of IP rights – patents, trademarks, copyrights and trade secrets – as business assets. There will be 100 speakers from Europe, North America and Asia.

Plenary topics include:

  • What is the future of IP in the 21st century?
  • Is your nation ready for open innovation?
  • More IP rights or better enforcement?
  • The future of injunctive relief in Europe?

On Friday, December 4 at 2:20 (14.20), your intrepid IP CloseUp editor, BB, will moderate a panel on Patent Quality – Always Challenging; Never Simple. Panelists will include:

>Valencia Martin Wallace  Deputy Commissioner for Patent Quality  USPTO / US

>Daniel G. Papst    Managing Director  PAPST LICENSING Gmbh & Co. KG / DEU

> Christian Vejgaard   European Patent Attorney  ERICSSON / SWD 

Chair : Bruce Berman Principal  BRODY BERMAN ASSOCIATES / US  

11A Patent Quality – Always Challenging; Never Simple
Defining patent quality
– What is a good patent?
– Distinguishing validity from invention quality and value
– Establishing more reliable patents
– The impact of poor quality

The patent quality session will be followed by a session on patent transactions on which IBM, Samsung, Chipworks and Unified Patents and are scheduled to participate.

This year’s IP summit partners include IP CloseUp and Brody Berman Associates. 

For the full agenda go here.

To register go here.

imgres

Image source: premier cercle; i-mop.biz

Google’s patent giveaway is not really about saving startups from predators

The Patent Starter Program announced last week by Google may be less about how the company can help protect young companies from patent “trolls” than re-thinking how patents are most effectively used.

 A provocative article running on the Fortune blog by Jeff John Roberts, Google’s new patent plan: how it will and won’t help startups,” suggests that Google is packaging incentives to discourage companies from enforcing patents or selling them to businesses that do.

Roberts believes that the Patent Starter Program could create big long-term ripples in how the tech industry views and deploys patents, and leverages brand recognition. It is an indication of Google’s growing sophistication in the IP space, and shows its willingness to participate in patent transactions (buy and release, similar to Allied Security Trust) if they can help to achieve the tech leader’s business goals.

*****

“The real significance of the Google Patent Starter Program,” writes Roberts,”is instead more subtle, and should be seen against the backdrop of other moves wpid-google-inc-offers-to-sell-patents-to-startups-as-company-fights-patent-trolGoogle is undertaking to change the economic incentives that have made patents such a problem for the tech sector in the first place.”

“Perhaps the search giant is actually tempted to follow the example of older companies like Microsoft and Qualcomm which, as their capacity for product innovation fades, have turned to their patent portfolios as a new revenue stream.”

Google lawyer Kurt Brasch said that was not the case and that the goal of the purchase program was in part to create more realistic expectations about the actual value of patents in the secondary market.

*****

The new starter program obliges the startups who receive Google patents to sign up for the LOT network, “a condition that’s easy to accept,” says Fortune, “since Google will pick up the first two years of the membership tab.”

Image source: techno-stream.net

Patent quality — Is a “shared responsibility”, says IBM; it does not represent invention quality or IP value

There is a great deal of agreement that patent quality is lacking, but surprisingly little about how to define and achieve it.

Patent quality is typically associated with validity. Good patents are valid upon scrutiny, bad ones invalid. However, the term also refers to the relative importance of an invention and the value of the “negative” right – the right to exclude others from practicing it.

I attended the recent Patent Quality Summit hosted by the USPTO in Alexandria, VA on March 25-26.  Among the challenging remarks were those of Manny Schecter, Chief Patent Counsel at IBM, and the Summit’s first speaker.

He reminded the audience of more than 200 that patent value is a “shared responsibility” between the applicant and the examiner.

Schecter also said that “patent quality is not invention quality of patent value.” Wise words from head of IP of the 20-year leader in obtaining U.S. patents.

Hon. Paul Michel, former Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), was candid about how he believes patent quality can be improved. He wants greater onus placed on the examination and examiner. He says that the application process is the first line of offense for eliminating bad patents and facilitating more reliable ones. Better-educated and more empowered examiners who understand likely legal arguments should issued patents be disputed will help. Patents should not be issued in a vacuum.

*****

Search time and examiner resources are often cited as the key obstacles to issuing good patents. Those USPTO realities are unlikely to change much. What could change are the introduction of stricter parameters for patents to issue, and not wait for the courts or the PTAB to weigh in on issues like validity and enablement (Rule 112), when they could have been addressed much earlier in the application process. This would save multiple parties time and money. Currently, patents are almost always insufficiently reliable both to those who practice inventions and those who may wish enforce them. This may not be inevitable.

Issued patents need to move closer to a slam dunk than a moving target. Examinations and examiners will play a key role in that difficult process. If I hear what Judge Michel is saying, let’s give them a chance.

Information about the Summit, including it’s three pillars and six quality proposals can be found here. Public comments are requested by the USPTO until May 6. 

*****

An article by Christi Guerrini, an IP Fellow, IIT Chicago-Kent College of Law in the Fordham Law Review, “Defining Patent Quality,” is a nobel attempt to begin to deconstruct the meaning of superior patents, and to go beyond a simple black/white definition defined by the legal parameters of validity.

From the author’s abstract:

“Depending on whom you ask, the state of U.S. patent quality is either dismal or decent, in decline or on fordhamlrev_headerthe upswing, in need of intervention or best left alone. Absent from the ongoing debate about the quality of U.S. patents, however, is much thoughtful discussion about what constitutes a patent’s “quality” in the first place. What features of a patent make it “good” in quality, what features make it “bad” in quality, and whose opinion matters?

“Surprisingly, scholars and policymakers have shown little interest in these questions. Yet their answers are critical to the direction of the patent agenda because they dictate how to measure patent quality and, consequently, how to evaluate the extent of the so-called patent quality ‘crisis’ as well as the effectiveness of quality reforms.

“The broad aim of this Article is to draw attention to the definition of patent quality as an important subject of scholarly inquiry. Its more specific aim is to call for a return to first principles and begin the process of operationalizing the meaning of patent quality. It does so by analyzing the concept using a methodology applied in the business literature of quality management.”

Defining Patent Quality” can be found here.

*****

In “Toward a working definition of patent quality,” which appears in the May IAM, out next week, I consider the challenges to better reliability.

“Patent quality is important because, among other things, a lack of it can impede businesses and require some to engage in unnecessary licensing or lawsuits.

“Bad patents are unreliable and undermine the integrity of the patent system, including the institutions Quality WEB HeaderNEWand professionals that sustain it. However, given the multitude of ways that standards are applied in specific cases, coming up with a universal definition of ‘patent quality’ is no easy feat. The best patents are often in the eye of the beholder.”

For the column I asked four people — an economist and valuation expert, a patent attorney, a former chief patent counsel and a successful NPE — to provide me with a two-sentence definition of “patent quality.” Their responses – thoughtful and startlingly precise – are a good indication that more work still needs to be done on this deceptively important area.

IAM subscribers can find my Intangible Investor column here.

Image source: ipfrontline.com; uspto.gov; fordham.edu

Patent ‘Quality Summit’ will be open to the public, March 25-26

The goal of the USPTO gathering is to promote discussion of ways to improve patent quality.

The first Patent Quality Summit will take place at United States Patent and Trademark Office headquarters in Alexandria, VA on March 25-26.

The two-day event’s opening session, “Perspectives on the Importance of Quality,” will feature corporate counsel, private practitioners, academics, economists, and jurists. Sessions will be open to the public, and those wishing to attend the Quality Summit but cannot be in Alexandria, they will be able to listen to and watch the presentations via a live stream. Participation in the Brainstorming sessions will be via WebEx during which virtual attendees will be able to participate interactively.

According to a press release the gathering is intended to “encourage robust discussions among USPTO leadership; patent prosecutors, litigators, applicants and licensees; and other members of the public interested in USPTO’s efforts to further improve patent quality through its Enhanced Patent Quality Initiative.

The conference draft agenda, three pillars to improve quality and six proposals can be found here, as well as information about virtual attendance. 

A focus of the Summit will be on improving patent operations and procedures to provide Quality SUMMIT Logo-02the best work product, to enhance the customer experience, and to improve existing quality metrics. USPTO has already set in motion several quality initiatives, including robust technical and legal training for patent examiners, as well as a Glossary Pilot, Quick Patent IDS Program, First Action Interview Pilot, and After Final Consideration Pilot.

Public Comments Solicited

Separate from the Quality Summit, the USPTO is seeking public comment on its Enhanced Patent Quality Initiative. Comments in this round will be accepted through May 6, 2015. For further information about the summit – including a draft agenda – and instructions for submitting comments, visit the Federal Register Notice.

“High quality patents permit certainty and clarity of rights, which in turn fuels innovation and reduces needless litigation,” said Deputy Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Deputy Director of the USPTO, Michelle K. Lee.

Image source: uspto.gov

Life360: “It is a huge stretch to say we are infringing”

The comment that follows is from Life360 CEO Chris Hulls in response to the 2/9/15 IP CloseUp post, “Family App Developer Says it’s the Victim of a Patent ‘Troll’ — Research Indicates Otherwise.”

“Bruce, Chris Hulls from Life360 here.

“I genuinely appreciate your interest in this case. I would encourage you to dig into this further before you draw any final conclusions, as the facts may surprise you.

“Also wanted to clarify a few points from your story.

“1) We have never said AGIS was formed as a shell entity. I believe they are a dying business and the lawyers at Kenyon are opportunistically trying to monetize their patents. I believe that if you do further research you’ll see that AGIS is essentially a one man show run out of a Jupiter, Florida mansion, and that their core business is likely failing. If you look at their product manuals, you will see that the designs look old and amateurish, and my guess is they are only there for show at this point.

“2) If you review the patents they are asserting against us, I think you will find it is a huge stretch to say we are infringing. In fact, given the amount of prior art we collected, I think it’s fair to question the validity of the patents overall. They were envisioned for a product drastically different than ours, and they are taking advantage of the claims’ obscure and indefinite wording to fit us in their bucket. This position was validated at our Markman hearing where the judge ruled that four of their claims were indefinite, and this language was scattered throughout their patents.

“3) You mention that Kenyon is a reputable law firm. We thought the same and were also surprised that they took this case, but have heard rumors that they might be having hard times and are moving the troll route to stay afloat. I can’t say this definitively, but as another example, the same lawyer Mark Hannemann in our case recently filed a case on behalf of Bradium Technologies against Microsoft (Case 1:15-cv-00031-RGA in Delaware). If you look into Bradium, you come across this site:http://www.ip-holdings.com/ which appears to be a patent holding company which advertises their ability to transfer and monetize IP.

“I’m willing to have a dialogue with anyone who has questions about this case including AGIS and Kenyon and Kenyon. If it isn’t a troll case, they shouldn’t be ashamed to talk about their actions. To that end, if you’d like to interview me, and also invite them to participate, I’m game! I’d only ask that you be extremely critical of both of us, and cut through the legal veneer to get to the heart of the matter.”

Family App Developer Says it’s the Victim of a Patent “Troll” — Research Indicates Otherwise

When it comes to invention rights (patents) it is often difficult to determine who is a victim and who is merely promoting its agenda.

Life360, which markets the world’s largest family tracking app, says it is being unfairly targeted by what it calls a patent troll, Advanced Ground Information Systems Inc.(AGIS).  SF-based Life360, which has raised $50 million from security giant ADT, says it wasting its capital on defending itself from AGIS, a company that makes tracking equipment and software for the military and first responders. But that is only part of the story.

In a video interview  last week on Bloomberg News, Life360 CEO Chris Hulls, a former Goldman Sachs banker who spent time in the U.S. Air Force, said that “We believe it to be meritless suit from a troll. Life360 is helping people. Our product is one that saves lives, and its ridiculous that we have to defend ourselves in court.”

Life360-300x119

In a letter from Life360 to AGIS, Hulls wrote: “Dear Piece of S***, We are in the process of retaining counsel and investigating this matter… I will pray that karma is real and that you are its worthy recipient.”

In the patent world holders and their patents are not always as good or bad, or right or wrong, as they might appear. The “bad” guys in licensing are sometimes bottom-feeders looking for a quick payout given the high price of litigation, but, more often than not, they are legitimate holders of valid patents that are being used without authorization. Infringers sometimes invent four of five-letter words terms for those who expect to be paid for their inventions. Thus, it may be opportune for a a business edit the story to suit its needs. This appears to be the case with Life360.

The Court of Public Opinion currently is a more powerful ally to a patent infringer than it is to a small holder whose rights have been violated. Patent infringement is not a victimless crime. Unfortunately, it is not always clear who the real victim is.

Inventor-owned Patents

Envision IP, a law firm which focuses on patent research, says that it is unlikely that AGIS is a “troll.”

“The four patents it asserted against Life360 list AGIS as the original assignee – so these patents were not purchased or acquired by the company,” said Maulin Shah, Managing Attorney. “The suit is filed in the Southern District of Florida, apparently in AGIS’s backyard, and does not appear to have pursued an
explicitly patent-friendly jurisdiction like Texas, Delaware of the Eastern District of Virginia.” (The suit lists Jupiter, FL the company’s address.)

Envision IP, which conducts invalidity studies, says that the complaint against Life360 is the only patent infringement lawsuit currently filed by AGIS, and it has not asserted its patents against any other companies. (Life360 is one of 25 defendants sued by an NPE called Remote Locater Systems LLC.) Also, AGIS appears to be an active operating company that has been filing annual reports since 2004. “It does not seem that the entity was formed as a shell used solely for patent licensing/enforcement purposes,” says patent attorney Shah.

Additionally, AGIS is represented by Kenyon & Kenyon, a highly respected law firm known for defending large operating companies, like Bosch and Siemens. Kenyon represents precious few if any plaintiffs, and it is highly unlikely that it would agree to represent AGIS if the case were truly meritless. But, then, you never know.

Life360 to the Defense

Life360 Inc. said last week that it will provide legal support for other small companies sued by Advanced Ground Information Systems Inc. So far, according to Envision IP, it does not appear that any logohave. Jupiter, Florida-based AGIS sued Life360 in federal court in West Palm Beach, Florida, in May 2014, accusing the California company of infringing four patents related to mobile-phone communication.

In a Feb. 3 statement, Life360 said that in addition to assisting others who are accused of infringing the disputed patents, it has filed a countersuit (click on View Complaint) in federal court in San Jose, California, accusing AGIS of marking all of its products with its patents regardless of whether the patent contains a claim covering the product. Life360 is represented by the Bergeson, LLP, a Silicon Valley law firm, in that matter. It is unclear who is representing it in defending against the patent suit.

According to PandoDaily six-year old Life360 has now raised a total of $76 million from more than a dozen investors that include Duchossois Capital Partners, BMW i Ventures, Facebook, Google, Expansion Venture Capital, DCM, and Bessemer Venture Partners.

Potential for an Injunction

Perhaps Life360’s greatest fear – and hence its high-profile defense – is that if AGIS can show that it is an operating company, and one that supports the military and first responders,  it can potentially use an injunction to stop Life360 from selling its app, effectively shutting the company down. Much of this could be saber-rattling to enhance the parties’ respective negotiating position. But for Life360 its defense in the AGIS suit may indeed be a bet-the-company-matter.

According to the complaint (page 3), AGIS’s founder, Malcolm Beyer Jr, who is named as an inventor on the asserted patents, is a former Marine, and graduate of the US Naval Academy. He developed AGIS’ patented technology “shortly after September 11, 2001.” The commercial product based on the patents is called LifeRing. (The page explains the product features and provides a market comparison.) 

Whatever the outcome, going public with a “damn-the-troll” defense, as Life360 has, is looking old and worn, even if it can still sometimes work. Allegations like those are outside the merits of the case, and from the preliminary research, will be difficult to prove.

Image source: agisinc.com; articleonepartners.com

More Patent Holders, Filers Need to be Mindful of Bad Behaviors

Companies that denigrate independent patent holders who enforce their rights should take care not put all of the blame for the patent system’s ills on NPEs — There is plenty of bad patent behavior to go around. 

In the patent system it’s getting harder to tell the bad actors apart. And you know what they say about bad karma: What goes around comes around.

In the current Intangible Investor, in the March IAM, What’s in Their Wallet?,” I speculate about the dangers of complaining too loudly about how and by whom patents are being used. It can come back to haunt some large holders, many of whom hold large numbers of dubious patents and could be considered serial infringers.

REGULATE-tmagArticle“High patent counts are frequently a tactic rather than a solution and are an unreliable measure of success,” I write. “They are no more an indication of efficiency or innovation than a frivolous suit is of infringement. The quality of a patent holder’s portfolio matters, regardless of whether there is an intention to enforce it.

“Securing questionable patents is not a crime (although perhaps it should be), while enforcing them borders on one. This double standard will not exist forever. Decrying frivolous litigation loses meaning when the most vocal detractors of the current system are responsible for some of its worst patents.”

*****

In “The Mousetrap,” Hamlet’s play-within-the-play designed to catch the King, Hamlet’s mother, Queen Gertrude, observes, “The lady doth protest too much.”

According to Wikipedia the quotation has been used “as a figure of speech to indicate that a person’s overly frequent or vehement attempts to convince others of something have ironically helped to convince others that the opposite is true, by making the person look insincere and defensive.”

Smart holders of some large patent portfolios would be wise to heed the advice. Subscribers to IAM can find “What’s in Their Wallet?” here.

Image source: depts.ttu.edu; dealbook.nytimes.com

Leading Blogger Unloads on Patent Critics and the Real Bad Actors

Innovation is not threatened by patent “trolls,” says a Virginia IP attorney, but by half-truths about the failure of the patent system spread by businesses looking to defend their turf.

The publisher of IP Watchdog, one of the most widely read blogs in the patent field, went from watchdog to bulldog this week, taking on businesses and lawmakers who falsely deride the patent system.

Gene Quinn, a seasoned patent attorney, says that the patent system is not dysfunctional. It’s many of the most established technology companies looking to stay on top who are.

Silicon Valley’s Anti-Patent Propaganda: Success at What Cost? is required reading for everyone affected by IP, especially those who believe that patent enforcement is ruining innovation and destroying the economy. Patent holders, small and large, NPE and operating company will find the article revealing if not relevant.

Motown Comes to the Valley

Whether we wish to believe it or not Silicon Valley is knee-deep in mature businesses. It is vaguely reminiscent of Detroit’s golden age, when new ideas in the automobile industry and real competition were considered a nuisance. Don’t let the overstuffed patent portfolios of many technology companies fool you: These are not patent friendly businesses and won’t be until they figure out, as Microsoft and Philips have, how to profit from good patents. One wonders if some Silicon Valley tech companies have become too big not to fail

Gene-12-10-2013“This [rhetoric about the failing patent system and rampant litigation] has led the media, the public and members of Congress to incorrectly believe that there is a ‘patent troll problem,’ which has influenced decision-makers all the way from Capitol Hill to the United States Supreme Court, who increasingly seems to be deciding patent cases with one eye firmly on what is a completely non-existent problem…”

“So how has such a factually baseless narrative been able to dominate the discussion? This propaganda was promoted by some of the elite Silicon Valley companies over the years, with Google leading the charge. But Google is a high-tech company. Why would they want to damage the patent system by spreading half-truths and reckless misrepresentations?…”

“Despite what some have been lead to believe, Google is a company that was founded on strong patent protection, having filed two patent applications prior to even obtaining the domain name Google.com. These patents related to Google’s proprietary page rank algorithm. The Google search algorithms, protected by patents, were how Google moved from fledgling start-up to eventually dominate the likes of Yahoo! and Microsoft.

“Simply stated, like virtually every other Silicon Valley start-up Google relied on the exclusive rights provided by patents and now that they are dominant they would prefer the patent system to evaporate so that the next round of dorm-room start-ups won’t be able to challenge Google in the same way that Google supplanted Yahoo! and Microsoft.

“The truth is Google is just one groundbreaking algorithm away from becoming old news.”

Sharing the Blame

Quinn says there is plenty of blame to go around:

“To a large extent Apple, Microsoft and many other Silicon Valley innovators went along with the anti-patent rhetoric perfected by the Google machine because they were facing what they called a ‘patent troll problem.’ This caused even innovation based leaders to throw in with Google and others in an attempt to vilify innovators and a patent system run amok. Such a myopic strategy risked the innovative future of these companies by putting their own patent portfolios in grave jeopardy in order to address the problems they were having with a relatively small number of truly bad actors who were clearly abusing the litigation process.”

*****

“The quickest way to get less innovation is to destroy the patent system. This should be self-evident to everyone, but sadly there are many intellectually challenged individualspinocchio-concept-250-225 who refuse to believe this objective truth. If patents inhibit innovation then why don’t countries without a patent system have run away innovation? If patents get in the way of innovation why do countries with the strongest patent rights have the most innovation?”

*****

Whether you agree or not with Gene Quinn he is a leading IP voice, unafraid to call it as he sees it in “Silicon Valley’s Anti-Patent Propaganda: Success at What Cost?”

Quinn’s strong words remind us that we live in a still great country with an active if imperfect legal system and a free press that, like patents, sometimes must be used to be fully appreciated.

Image source: ipwatchdog.com

Post-Grant Reviews are Shaping NPE Patent Quality & Portfolio Size

More and better patents have greater meaning for licensors now that a petitioner can seek an internal review (IPR) canceling a patent because of a single claim. Expect those with capital and experience to prevail.

IPNav announced in May that the firm’s President, Deirdre Leane, is set to succeed CEO Erich Spangenberg by the end of the year.

Leane spoke with IPBC Global’s Richard Lloyd recently in Amsterdam about the future of patent licensing and the impact that Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) are having on patent licensing. Leane also chatted about the a more expanded role for women in IP and her increased responsibilities at IPNav.

Dierdre3

 

She says the IPR pendulum has already starting to swing back in favor of patent holders. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decisions have gone from “a 90% plus kill rate to 82%,” Leane notes.

Leane believes that trend is likely to continue to move towards 70%, as patent holders select better patents to assert.

For those of you who wish to go directly to Leane’s remarks about IPRs, they start a bit after 2:00 in the 13 minute interview. The entire interview can be found here.

Image source: ipbcglobal.com

%d bloggers like this: