Research to be published in Science on April 29, 2016 shows how cash-hungry patent trolls are squelching innovation when the American economy depends on it more than ever. What should be done?
The new study, co-authored by Professor Lauren Cohen of Harvard Business School, Professor Umit Gurun of the University of Texas at Dallas, and Dr. Scott Duke Kominers, a Junior Fellow at the Harvard University Society of Fellows, examines the sharp rise in patent litigation in the United States during the past decade, with 2015 marking one of the highest patent lawsuit counts on record.
In theory, the rise in patent litigation could reflect growth in the commercialization of technology and innovation, as lawsuits increase proportionately as more and more companies turn to intellectual property (IP) protection to safeguard their competitive advantages. In reality, however, it’s a very different story. The authors point out that the majority of recent patent litigation has been driven by “nonpracticing entities” (NPEs) – firms that generate no products but instead amass patent portfolios just for the sake of enforcing IP rights.
Cohen, Gurun, and Kominers discuss new, large-sample evidence adding to a growing literature that suggests that NPEs—in particular, large patent aggregators—on average act as “patent trolls,” suing cash-rich firms, seemingly irrespective of actual patent infringement.
Patent trolling has a negative impact on innovation activity at targeted firms. Cohen, Gurun, and Kominers estimate that after settling with NPEs (or losing to them in court), companies on average reduce their research and development (R&D) investment by more than 25 percent. These results, Cohen, Gurun, and Kominers say, indicate a need to change U.S. intellectual property policy, particularly to screen out trolling early in the litigation process.
Although since 2010 the U.S. Congress has considered more than a dozen bills aiming to reduce patent trolling, most of the proposed policy changes focus on after-the-fact punishments for bringing lawsuits that are declared to be frivolous (or “extraordinary”) after court proceedings.
For example, H.R. 9, the “Innovation Act,” which is currently on the docket, provides for mandatory fee-shifting for patent lawsuits that the courts determine are not “reasonably justified.” In reality, however, the average costs of patent litigation are large ($1 million to $4 million) and the process is drawn out. Even with the prospect of post-trial fee shifting, patent litigation targets may thus find it cost-effective and less disruptive to simply settle with NPEs, even in unfounded lawsuits. According to the authors, this is not a sufficient solution.
So what should be done? Cohen, Gurun, and Kominers say that policies should screen out trolling at or before the time of patent assertion. The authors recommend advance review procedures that would provide preliminary evaluation as to whether the plaintiff’s infringement claims are reasonable, and whether the asserted patents are of high quality. Such advance review could cripple trolling, they conclude – pre-litigation review can separate good NPEs (and, more generally, good patent lawsuits) from bad. Legitimate infringement claims will be encouraged, whereas trolling will be screened out. This would greatly benefit innovative companies and help them propel the U.S. economy to greater heights.
The Latest on: Patent Aggregators
via Google News
The Latest on: Patent Aggregators
- Global Prior Art Names Chris Smyth VP, Business Developmenton June 25, 2020 at 8:54 am
Global Prior Art (GPA), the leading provider of patent research and analytics services, today announced that Chris Smyth has joined GPA as Vice President, Business Development, effective June 1, 2020.
- California Judge May Dismiss Apple-Intel Antitrust Suit Targeting Patent Trollon June 22, 2020 at 9:11 pm
The DOJ recently joined the lawsuit on the side of Fortress, a patent aggregator sued by Apple and Intel on antitrust grounds.
- Extreme Networks reaches amicable agreement with iPel over patent disputeon June 22, 2020 at 12:50 am
Extreme Networks said it has reached an amicable agreement with patenting company iPel, settling patent disputes that began in January 2019. At that time, iPel unit Global Innovation Aggregators filed ...
- Extreme Networks and iPEL Announce Amicable Settlement of Patent Litigationon June 19, 2020 at 1:31 pm
Extreme Networks, Inc. and iPEL, Inc. jointly announced they have settled disputes concerning their ongoing patent litigation.
- Apple, Intel Have 'A Pleading Problem' Against Fortresson June 18, 2020 at 7:50 pm
Apple and Intel may have to rejigger their lawsuit accusing Fortress Investment Group LLC of running an anti-competitive patent aggregation scheme after a California federal judge said in oral ...
- Fortress Gets U.S. Backing in Apple Patent ‘Puppeteering’ Suiton June 18, 2020 at 1:00 am
The Trump administration will join Fortress Investment Group in court Thursday in an antitrust fight with Apple Inc. and Intel Corp. with billions of dollars in patent royalties at stake.
- Apple on the hook for $109 million to patent aggregator WiLANon June 17, 2020 at 4:19 am
The latest ruling in the ongoing Apple versus WiLAN saga has been handed down, with Apple subject to a judgement including interest of $109 million — and it may still increase further.
via Bing News