![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]><![if gte IE 9]><![endif]>
Not a Lexis+ subscriber? Try it out for free.
LexisNexis® CLE On-Demand features premium content from partners like American Law Institute Continuing Legal Education and Pozner & Dodd. Choose from a broad listing of topics suited for law firms, corporate legal departments, and government entities. Individual courses and subscriptions available.
[Originally posted 07/27/2011]
In eBay Inc. v.
MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 396 (U.S. 2006) [enhanced version available to lexis.com subscribers / unenhanced version available from lexisONE Free Case Law], Justice
Kennedy, in his concurrence, made the following observation:
In cases now arising trial
courts should bear in mind that in many instances the nature of the patent
being enforced and the economic function of the patent holder present
considerations quite unlike earlier cases. An industry has developed in which
firms use patents not as a basis for producing and selling goods but, instead,
primarily for obtaining licensing fees.
Last week, NPR's This
American Life broadcast a story entitled, When Patents Attack, which took a look at patent trolls
and examined the workings of Intellectual
Ventures, a patent holding company. The story is as informative as it is
colorful, with references to:
In the NPR story, the implication is made that
Intellectual Ventures is a patent troll -- maybe the chief troll with one of
the largest patent portfolios in existence. But is a patent troll merely a bad
name for someone you don't like who also owns a number of patents? Intellectual
Ventures argues that what it does is both productive and helpful in that it promotes
innovation by supporting inventors who have neither the money nor legal savvy
to stop infringement. As part of its $2 billion in revenue, Intellectual
Ventures collects royalties that actually should have been paid (as opposed to collections
based merely on litigation avoidance). And as Peter Detkin, Intellectual Venture's co-founder, notes in
the NPR piece, litigation is just licensing by other means.
Recently, Intellectual Ventures offered their side of the
story. In IV® Insights, the
Intellectual Ventures corporate blog, the company posted Disruption Invites Controversy, a response to the NPR
story. In the blog, Intellectual Ventures refers to itself as a "disruptive
organization," which is not to be taken negatively. Instead, being similar to "disruptive
innovation," Intellectual Ventures is a new product or service that has
radically changed the patent market - a rapid and unexpected progress that has
disrupted all reliance on the status quo. The blog states that the real,
substantive issue is: "what are the best ways to ensure that ideas are given
the value they are due?" The status quo is now being challenged by a business
model that focuses solely on invention and patent investment, and any
disruption is a necessary marketplace development. As stated in the blog:
Many of the world's leading
technology companies are now beginning to recognize that patents are actually
strategic assets that can be worth billions of dollars. This evolution in
perspective is another crucial step toward an efficient market for inventions ....
(For an interesting narrative on Intellectual Ventures' approach
towards patent reform, read the March 14th federal complaint, Choate vs. Intellectual Ventures, 11-00528 (D.D.C. 3/14/11).
The case was settled and dismissed.)
Of interest is this idea of "strategic assets," which, in
the context of intellectual property, suggests something more specific -- "patent
strategy." To simplify things, patent strategy can be categorized as either
offensive (litigation and royalties) or defensive (patent hoarding). A recent
article from the San Francisco Chronicle
touches upon the latter. As author Matt Rosoff points out in his
July 24th article Who Does Patent-Trading Firm Intellectual Ventures Work For,
What NPR does not get into,
however, is the fact that Intellectual Ventures is backed by many of the
biggest and most powerful companies in technology, including Amazon, Apple,
Cisco, eBay, Google, Nokia, Sony, Yahoo, and -- of course -- Microsoft.
At first blush, the conspiracy theorist in all of us might
see a sort of "Patent Illuminati," with some of the nation's largest corporations
coming together to control a treasure-trove of patents. However, to quote Shakespeare's
Richard III, "Now is the Winter
of our Discontent," which might best describe the patent system's current state. Keeping this in mind, a second look at patent hoarding might offer up a
preventative and protective motive, rather than one that is conspiratorial. As stated in the NPR
story, existing patents probably cover every single behavior that's happening
on the internet and mobile phones. This, if true, means that tech companies,
when taking a step forward, will likely take that step into already patented
technology. To further compound matters, as noted in NPR's interview with David Martin of M•CAM, about 30% of all patents are for
things already invented.
Of course, one company's patent hoard is another company's
litigation risk. This brings us back to the NPR story, which touches upon the question:
Do patent holding companies earn their fees less from royalties or more from litigation;
particularly, the threat of litigation and fee payments to avoid that threat?
Eric E. Bensen on the Patent Reform Act of 2011
its predecessors, the Patent Reform Act of 2011, a.k.a. the "America
Invents Act," promises to bring about substantial changes in patent law,
but, unlike earlier Patent Reforms Acts, the PRA 2011's major provisions are
relatively narrow in focus.
Change Is in the Air: Be Ready for a First-To-File Patent
law change has become likely this year. The pending legislation would grant
patent rights to the inventor who is first to file a patent application for an
invention. In switching, U.S. patent law would resemble that of Europe, Japan,
and, indeed, most other countries of the world.
A Perspective on the Patent Wars over Mobile Technology
has been an epidemic of patent litigation between major players in the mobile
technology market. Some increase in patent litigation was to be expected as
various technologies have converged in the design of smartphones and tablet
computers. But the sheer multitude of patents involved in these suits has made
it difficult to arrive at any firm conclusions.
Lexis.com subscribers can explore/search Patent Law resources on Lexis.com or access any of these Mathew Bender Patent Law publications:
Non-subscribers can purchase Patent Law
treatises/resources and Mathew Bender publications from the LexisNexis Bookstore
For more information about LexisNexis products and
solutions connect with us through our corporate