Patent Trolls Case Study
A Study in Business Law of Patent Trolls
March 12, 2014
“‘Oh, the story of a troll kind of fits ‘cause the whole Billy Goats Gruff thing, it’s someone lying under a bridge they didn’t build, demanding payment from anyone who passed. I said, ‘How about a patent troll?’”
Peter Detkin
Counsel for Intel
It’s a story every child knows: The poor three Billy Goats Gruff that just want to cross the bridge. The evil troll that blocks their way and demands a stiff toll before letting them pass. The final justice that prevails when the biggest and oldest Billy Goat Gruff pushes the troll off the bridge. But aside from childhood bedtime stories, do these evil “trolls” really exist in today’s world, impacting the financial …show more content…
wellbeing of our society?
The term “patent troll” was coined in the late 1990s by Peter Detkin, counsel for Intel. Intel had been hit by a series of lawsuits from companies that did not build anything, yet held patents for products used in manufacturing by Intel (such as semiconductors). In turn, they demanded Intel pay up for using their patents. In a particularly frustrating lawsuit, Detkin called the lawyer filing it a ‘patent extortionist,’ which caused that lawyer to sue for libel and Detkin to search for a better name. As Detkin explains:
“So I had a contest inside Intel. The contest itself was named “The Terrorist”… we got a lot of suggestions but none really fit. But… [my daughter] liked playing with those troll dolls… [I] said, ‘Oh, the story of a troll kind of fits ‘cause the whole Billy Goats Gruff thing, it’s someone lying under a bridge they didn’t build, demanding payment from anyone who passed. I said, ‘How about a patent troll?’” 1
The name stuck and the problem grew. As illustrated in the graph below from PatentFreedom.com, from 2004 to 2013 the number of patent infringement lawsuits has grown drastically, especially in the later years.
2
According to RPX statistics, patent trolls (also known as NPEs – non-practicing entities) filed over 3,600 suits in 2013 alone, up 19% from 2012. Of the patent suits filed in 2012, over 67% of them were NPE-related.3 For many titans of industry – especially the tech industry – these suits are more than just distraction. Patent trolls sued wireless carrier AT&T over 54 times in 2013 - more than once a week! As the recent Fortune magazine article entitled RPX: Taking on the patent trolls explains, “AT&T is no anomaly. Google was hit with 43 NPE suits last year; Verizon, 42; Apple, 41; Samsung and Amazon, 39 each; Dell and Sony, 34 each; Huawei, 32; BlackBerry, 31. Every brand on this unenviable top 10 list was sued by an NPE at least once every 12 days.”4
But how did this phenomenon come about? And, even more importantly, how has it been able to flourish in today’s society? To answer these questions, we first examine what a patent troll is.
A “patent troll” is new name for an old – albeit, arguably escalating – problem. Historically, as long as patents have existed in the United States they have been fraught with controversy. Virtually every American inventor who pioneered a major innovation has had to deal with litigation or controversy surrounding his (or her) patent. The inventor of the telegraph, Samuel FB Morse, bitterly complained about “patent pirates” and the hours he had to spend in court proving he was the inventor. The Wright brothers refused to license their airplane patents (until forced to by the US government), and were publicly vilified for it. Henry Ford had to defend himself in court from a group of financiers claiming they held a patent (purchased from another inventor) that covered gas-powered automobiles.
Just what is a patent anyway?
According to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), a patent is an intellectual property right granted by the US Government to an inventor “to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling the invention throughout the United States or importing the invention into the United States for a limited time in exchange for public disclosure of the invention when the patent is granted.”5 There are three types of patents: utility, design and plant patents.
Utility patents (also known as nonprovisional utility patents) cover “new and useful” processes, machines, articles of manufacture, compositions of matter, and “any new and useful improvement thereof.” (There is a special classification under utility patents called provisional patents to help inventors protect new ideas and inventions that have not been fully developed yet. However, provisional patent protection only lasts for twelve months, and afterward an inventor must file for a nonprovisional utility patent to continue to receive protection.) Design patents cover “new, original and ornamental design for an article of manufacture.” Whereas a utility patent is designed to protect a new invention or a functional improvement on an existing invention, a design patent is used when the basic product already exists but is being improved upon in style. Plant patents cover the invention or discovery of any “distinct and new variety of plant.” In addition, USPTO requires the invention must be novel, nonobvious, adequately described or enabled, and claimed by the inventor in clear and definite terms in order for a patent to be issued. Classes of patents include chemical patents, biological patents, business method patents, and software patents. (Business method patents have become increasingly common since the State Street Bank v. Signature Financial case of 1998, which established precedent for algorithm-based business methods to be patentable.)
The process to actually obtain a patent is lengthy and complex, as illustrated by this patent approval process chart from USPTO.
6
Oftentimes it is necessary for the inventor to engage the help of a registered patent attorney or agent to complete the complicated patent application and describe the invention in the precise technical terms required by the USPTO. The application is almost always rejected upon first submission – the USPTO rejects about 95% of them for reasons based on claims of prior art or lack of specificity. If the USPTO denies a patent application, the inventor has the right to appeal to the USPTO Board of Appeals. Once granted, utility and plant patent protection usually are valid for twenty years (from the date of filing the application), while design patent protection is valid for fourteen years (from the date of issuance of the patent). Utility and plant patents require payments of maintenance fees at scheduled times to maintain legal protection. During this time period, the patent holder has the exclusive right to use the invention. This means a holder can prohibit others from using it (or any product that is “substantially the same”), license it to other parties for a fee, or sue for legal remedies (for an injunction and/or to recover damages) from other parties using it without permission. It is important to note that in the United States, patents are governed by federal law and generally only enforceable through civil lawsuits. Ultimately, the purpose of a patent is to protect the rights of an inventor because of the fact that it is unlikely he would be paid fairly for the cost to produce his invention in a free market.
Yet another important aspect of US patents worthy of note is that they are “territorial” – meaning they do not confer any protection rights outside of the United States. If an inventor wants international protection, at the very least he needs to go through an international patents process – for many countries governed by the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) under the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) of the United Nations. To be fully protected for the exclusive rights to make, use, and sell and his invention, the investor must get a country-specific patents in every single country he wants to operate in by filing a separate application in each.
US Patent Governmental Regulations
The foundation for patent law in the United States is under Article One, Section 8 of the US Constitution, which states: “The Congress shall have power ... To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries…” On April 10, 1790, Congress passed the first Patent Act, titled “An Act to promote the progress of useful Arts.” This was passed to grant inventors “sole and exclusive right and liberty of making, constructing, using and vending to others to be used” their inventions. The act was intended to grant patents for “useful Arts” only, for inventions under the aegis of artisans and skilled workers. It also established the Patent Board (consisting of the Attorney General, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of War) to examine patent applications, and – for inventions found to be of use and importance – issue patents. What was the first US patent to be issued, you may ask? It was granted to Samuel Hopkins for his invention “Making Pot and Pearl Ashes,” better known as potash (an industrial chemical used in a variety of products, including soap-making and gunpowder). Clearly patent law has evolved. In today’s day and age, it is highly doubtful he would succeed patenting his “Pot and Pearl Ashes” as it was neither novel nor nonobvious!
The first modification to US patent law came in 1793, when Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson clarified the definition (and outlined wording for the statue similar to the wording still used today), stating that for an invention to be patented it must be “any new and useful art, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.” An important nuance in both the Patent Act of 1790 and 1793 was that the subject of a patent application “not [be] known or used before the application.” This established a basis for defense in infringement actions, where the defendant can quote: “the thing, thus secured by patent, was not originally discovered by the patentee, but had been in use…” – in other words, the patent is not valid because it covers an invention that was known about prior or in prior use before that particular patent was issued, commonly referred to as “prior art.”
However, it was not until the 1952 Act that patent law started to truly reflect how we know it today, with an amendment introducing the “non-obvious” criteria and clarification of a patent holder’s right as one that excludes others from using, making, or selling the invention. In more recent years, patent legislation has come to the forefront again, with the failed Patent Reform Acts of 2007 and 2009, and the successful America Invents Act (AIA) of 2011. The AIA was signed into law on September 16, 2011 and “represents the most significant change to the US patent system since 1952.”7 The most significant aspect of the Act is its change of the United States from a “first to invent” system to a “first-inventor-to-file” (FITF) system. In essence, this means that a patent is awarded to the inventor who is first to file the patent application, where previously a patent was awarded to the inventor who could prove s/he invented it first (regardless of who filed).
The AIA is perceived to have both negative and positive implications for patent trolls. AIA section 299, commonly referred to as the “joinder” clause, limits the number of accusers in a single patent infringement suit, thus hampering the traditional litigation strategies used by many patent trolls. On the flip side, the AIA opens a potential new strategy for patent trolls as well. Section 102(a)(2), which became effective as of March 16, 2013, states: ““A person shall be entitled to a patent unless…the claimed invention was described in a patent issued…or in an application published…in which the patent or application…names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.” It also contains a disclosure exception in section 102(b)(2) which states: “A disclosure shall not be prior art to a claimed invention under subsection (a)(2) if…the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, were owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person.”8
The article Patent trolls and the AIA – a Potential non-Litigation Business Strategy best explains section 102 by the picture below:
9
This means the date “On or after March 16, 2013 an issued patent or pending patent application that would be prior art to a new application has potential value to the applicant for a new patent. Thus, the date of March 16 can be a ‘bridge’ between the troll’s patent or application having no value to target A and a value that may be large…”10 While this may seem like a stretch, if the joinder clause of AIA section 299 is successful in thwarting patent trolls’ current litigation strategy, this may be the one of the only options left for them. The March 16, 2013, date has come and gone (almost exactly a year ago), but conclusive evidence on whether this is an effective strategy for patent trolls remains to be seen.
While the US Constitution authorizes Congress to grant patents, it is Title 35 of the United States Code that governs all aspects of patent law in the United States. Title 35 has four parts: Part I establishes the USPTO and outlines its responsibilities. Part II outlines the criteria for patentability that an invention must meet to be eligible for a patent. Part III concerns patent protection rights, while Part IV concerns the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) for international patent matters.
Within US patent litigation, District Courts litigate patent infringement suits and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) reviews decisions of the both the USPTO and the District Courts. Cases can be appealed again in the Supreme Court.
The Rise of NPEs
Because a patent holder can enter in to a licensing agreement with a licensee to grant the right to sell, use, make and/or import the invention (usually in return for a fee or royalty), it has given rise to a new type of company – the non-practicing entity or NPE. Depending on the context, these companies can also be referred to as patent holding companies or patent assertion entities (PAEs). What distinguishes a NPE is its “non-practice,” meaning that it does not sell any products or services of its own. Its sole purpose is obtain patents (usually through purchasing them on the open market or through business acquisitions) and then use them to bring suit against companies that sell products or services that may infringe against their acquired patents. In a nutshell, NPEs do not practice the technology covered by their patents. While the extreme statistics from the beginning of this paper illustrate the rapid rise of NPEs, there is an additional, more serious, implication. Oftentimes patent trolls do not need to even file suit; the threat of litigation alone is enough to force businesses to settle with large payments out of court. Although NPEs filed over 3,000 suits in 2012, more than 100,000 NPE-related suits were threatened – over 33 times the number brought! 11
The cost patent trolls have on industry cannot be understated. The below table from the Boston University School of Law entitled The Direct Costs from NPE Disputes, published in 2012 and revised in 2013, shows that the payments from companies to NPEs and inventors exceed one billion dollars annually. In the aggregate, over the past 20 years NPE-related suits have cost the economy over half a trillion dollars – over $300 billion of that in the past five years alone.
12
Oftentimes companies are forced into settling with NPEs to avoid the costs of litigation. Another table from the study shows that while the mean total non-litigation cost is $29.75 million, the comparable cost of litigation would be almost twice as high at $58.38 million.
13
Companies, especially in the tech sector, often cite these costs as a “tax on innovation” that hinders business practices and increases prices for consumers.14
The rise of NPEs in recent years can (at least partially) be attributed to the bursting of the dot-com bubble in 2000, where the accumulated patents proliferated by dot-coms as a sort of venture-capital collateral were suddenly worthless. These patents were then sold by bankruptcy courts at bargain-basement prices into the eagerly awaiting hands of “entrepreneurial lawyers and limited partnerships.”15
The real problem with NPEs is that by virtue of their “non-practicing” status, the companies who are being sued often are left without any bargaining power. Prior to the age of NPEs, companies could use their patents as leverage; “Patents once were a defense mechanism by big companies that used their massive IP portfolios to reach cross-licensing deals as a means of insuring against litigation from competitors.”16 But as more patents fall into the hands of NPEs and PAEs, that business model becomes a thing of the past, especially in the technology industry.
Adding furthermore to the problem is the proliferation of vague (usually business method) patents. “Tech companies eager to stake a claim on a snippet of code or bit of technology game the system by blithely filing thousands of patent applications, often for technology that 's already in widespread use, or for code or methods that are so obvious that they can 't pass the no-brainer test. Most often these applications cite no prior art -- that is, they claim that nothing on earth resembles what the patent would protect…”17 Given the overworked USPTO can often be browbeaten into eventually approving an application, these patents have the potential to be successfully issued (and thus turn in to an NPE’s bread and butter, as the next case so aptly shows).
Recent Case Law
Two landmark cases occurred in the 2000s regarding patent trolls, the first Research in Motion v. NTP, Inc. (also known as the “Blackberry” case) beginning in 2000, and the second the eBay Inc v. MercExchange LLC case beginning in 2006.
The RIM v NTP case began when NTP, a Virginia-based NPE holding multiple patents for electronic mail transmissions and components – or, as described in the BU case study referenced above, a company “founded by a failed wireless e-mail innovator named Campana and his patent attorney”18 – sent notice of their wireless email patents to multiple companies (including RIM) offering to license their patents to them.
None of these companies (including RIM) paid notice or took a license. NTP then brought an infringement suit against RIM in District Court. The jury found the NTP patents valid and RIM was found to have infringed them. In addition to $33 million for damages, the judge ordered RIM to pay an additional $20 million in punitive damages (since their infringement was “willful”) and issued an injunction that would have shut down the entire US BlackBerry system. Further litigation ensued, and eventually RIM was forced to settle with NTP to the tune of $612.5 million.
At the crux of the issue was the patent criterion of “prior art;” even though RIM had no notion of Campana’s inventions and patents until after they had developed the Blackberry technology, NTP had obtained such vaguely worded patents that they could be deemed to cover parts of software used in the Blackberry device. Furthermore, although too late to help Blackberry, it was discovered that “a few months after the November, 2002 ruling, during a reexamination of the NTP patents, the USPTO found that there existed …show more content…
prior art not considered in the earlier trial…”19
The moral of the Blackerry story? Although a “patently absurd” tale, NTP’s ultimate success and huge payoff paved the way for throngs of patent infringement suits to come.
The importance of the case eBay Inc v.
MercExchange LLC to patent holding companies centered on their ability to successfully gain (or at least have real power to threaten) injunctions against the companies they were suing. The Supreme Court heard an appeal by eBay’s appeal of an injunction granted to MercExchange by the CAFC. The background on this case began when eBay sought to license the patent for an electronic exchange from MerExchange, who owned the patent, and was refused. MercExchange sued eBay for infringement, and won damages in District Court of $35 million. However, following the jury verdict, MercExchange had their motion for a permanent injunction denied. The CACF then reversed that ruling, stating that courts will issue permanent injunctions against patent infringement as a “general
rule.”
Central to the case was the threat of injunction – “An eBay win at the high court would curb the courts ' ability to grant injunctions, thereby ‘lessening the hijacking effect’ of patent trolls.”20 Ultimately, the Supreme Court set aside the CAFC ruling, which prevented a curbing of the courts’ ability to grant injunctions. The reason the Supreme Court did so? Both the District Court and CAFC departed from the four-factor test for equitable injunctive relief (irreparable injury; whether remedies such as money damages are adequate; the balance of hardships between patent owner and infringer; and whether a permanent injunction would disserve the public interest) by coming to the conclusion: “a 'plaintiff 's willingness to license its patents ' and 'its lack of commercial activity in practicing the patents ' would be sufficient to establish that the patent holder would not suffer irreparable harm if an injunction did not issue.”21 The Supreme Court rejected this conclusion, as nothing in the Patent Act warranted such a departure. “Although the District applied the four-factor test, its holding would have excluded from the injunctive relief remedy ‘a broad swath of cases’… [In a victory for] patent holding companies, the Supreme Court rejected the notion that either not practicing the patented invention or granting a license under the patent would automatically disqualify a patent owner from seeking a permanent injunction… one can anticipate that, like copyright cases, most patent cases will result in a permanent injunction, once infringement is established.”22
The Supreme Court has another two cases remaining in its docket for 2014 regarding patent trolls: Akami Technologies v. Limelight Networks which centers on the concept of “divided infringement,” and Nautilis v. Biosig Instruments, another prime example for “vague patents.”23 While their outcomes are “patently” uncertain – an equivoque only the USPTO could love – the decisions are certain to add more fuel to the already blazing fire of NPE-related controversy.
Keeping the Troll Under the Bridge
Whether deserved or not, the tide of public opinion is definitively against patent trolls.
Over the past few years, government officials have been quick to attack them, with President Obama terming them “hijackers” and “extortionists” in 2012, inducing a spate of anti-troll bills to hit the House and Senate. Currently there are five major NPE-related bills pending in congress, from the Patent Litigation and Innovation Act (HR 2639), to the Transparency in Assertion of Patents Act, to the Patent Quality Improvement Act.
The act getting the most press – the Innovation Act (which passed the House in December, 2013 and will be debated the Senate this year) – was spearheaded by House Judiciary Chairman Robert Goodlatte, and is intended to “raise the bar” for those filing patent litigation alleging infringement. It includes “several transparency provisions for plaintiffs, while giving judges greater discretion to limit discovery and award legal fees to the victorious party… [and] would expand a program at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office that allows plaintiffs to challenge the validity of certain software patents related to the financial services industry for a much lower cost…”24
Ironically, while on the forefront of the Innovation Act the issue of fee-shifting in patent cases has also been heard in Supreme Court, with the cases Octane Fitness v. Icon Health and Highmark v. Allcare Management argued at the end of February, 2014. Both cases “involve defendants who prevailed over patent-holders but didn 't get what they wanted from the [CAFC].... In Octane Fitness, the defendant didn 't get a fee award; the company is arguing that the Federal Circuit 's standard for such awards is an impossible one to meet and must be changed. In Highmark… [the judge] described Allcare as displaying ‘the sort of conduct that gives the term 'patent troll ' a negative connotation.’ Despite Allcare 's bad behavior, the award was mostly overturned by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Now Highmark is arguing that the Federal Circuit should give more deference to trial court judges in matters of fee awards.”25
The issue of patent trolls is pervasive in the current political environment; within the past two years entities ranging from the Federal Trade Commission, to the US Justice Department, to a White House task force have all launched independent studies of the NPE problem. In November 2013, the Energy and Commerce Committee held a hearing titled “The Impact of Patent Assertion Entities on Innovation and the Economy,” aimed at “investigating recent trends in patent assertion practices to gain a better understanding on their impact on businesses.”26 Speakers included executive officers from the Texas Hotel & Lodging Association, Newegg, and White Castle. On March 7, 2014, South by Southwest (SXSW – an annual interactive arts and music festival held in Austin, Texas) held a session entitled “Clubbing the Patent Trolls: How We can Fight Back” with panelists including Congress member Goodlatte and Mark Cuban. 27
In Defense of the Troll
Patent trolls have their fair share of defenders as well.
In the article Not all patent trolls are demons in CNN Opinion, Timothy Holbrook claims what patent trolls do – paying inventors – is “laudable.” Instead of blaming patent trolls, he blames the problem on the USPTO issuing improper and invalid patents, and the extreme costs of discovery in trying to defend against infringement lawsuits. As he explains, “these are not troll problems; they are litigation and patent quality issues. Scapegoating trolls risks disrupting the useful compensatory purpose they serve and may cause unintended consequences in non-troll litigation.”28
Avik Roy, guest contributor for Forbes Opinion, entitled his recent piece Thank Heavens For Those Patent Trolls, opining “I weep for the patent trolls as the lynch mobs gather… they serve a genuine need in the marketplace. Patent trolls are often the buyer of last resort for an inventor who cannot afford to develop his or her invention into a product.”29
Alexander Poltorak, a Russian-born American author and scholar, as well as the founder of the American Innovators for Patent Reform (AIPR – founded to oppose the Patent Reform Act of 2007) is an advocate for the rights of NPEs to sue for injunctive relief, arguing “to be a troll one needs to (a) buy a patent, (b) not practice the patented invention, and (c) assert the acquired patent… this definition is patently absurd… Element (a) — buying a patent — is unfounded because it is common knowledge that a patent is personal property, which may be bought, sold, mortgaged, or otherwise monetized… Element (c) — asserting a patent — is even more absurd because what else can you do with a patent besides assert it? Whether a patentee licenses a patent or asserts it in litigation, both are really assertions. A ‘carrot license’ is nothing but a ‘stick license’ in disguise, because a patent is an exclusionary right and the only thing a patent owner can do with the patent is to assert it to exclude others! To summarize, the so-called ‘patent trolls’ are stuff of myths and legends, not of sound reason. The arguments to take an injunctive relief away from ‘patent trolls,’ ie, non-practicing inventors, are based on fuzzy logic. Let us hope that reason and sound logic prevail.”30
And clearly patent trolls are advocates for themselves. As PatentFreedom states, “To even the rhetorical score, defenders of NPEs have begun to paint large technology companies as ‘serial infringers’ that deserve the onslaught of patent infringement litigation they currently face.”31 The poster child of patent trolls is Nathan Myhrvold of Intellectual Ventures (IV), a company that has spawned thousands more shell companies to pursue patent infringement lawsuits. IV recently announced their plan to start a political action committee to lobby for patent trolls, given the increased exposure and multiple NPE/PAE-related bills circulating in Congress right now. As Jeff Roberts of Gigaom reports, “It’s a good bet… the [PAC] will target Congressional freshman with messages about ‘protecting property’ and ‘supporting innovation.’”32
Paying the Toll…
Depending on the historical context, patents have been seen as evil tools to protect monopolies to invaluable and necessary protection for the inventor. As Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson wrote in 1949, "The only valid patent is one which this Court has not been able to get its hands on." In the 1970s fear of diminishing US innovation led Congress to enact legislation increasing patent protection, yet less than fifty years later there are multiple bills in Congress to decrease it. While critics can argue away that patents are now granted too easily and improperly, once granted, a patent confers its protections to whoever holds it – trolls and non-trolls alike.
References
“10 Biggest Patent Troll Targets in Business - Fortune Features.” Accessed March 11, 2014. http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2014/02/27/patent-troll-targets/.
“35 U.S.C. 102: Conditions for Patentability; Novelty, After the AIA, Nov. 2011 (BitLaw).” Accessed March 12, 2014. http://www.bitlaw.com/source/35usc/102.html.
Allison, John R., Emerson H. Tiller, Samantha Zyontz, and Tristian Bligh. Patent Litigation and the Internet. SSRN Scholarly Paper. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network, January 20, 2012. http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1989106.
Bachman, Katy. “Senate Bill Targeting Patent Trolls on Fast Track.” AdWeek. Accessed March 11, 2014. http://www.adweek.com/news/technology/senate-bill-targeting-patent-trolls-fast-track-156019.
Beatty & Samuelson, Business Law and the Legal Environment, Fifth Edition, ISBN 0-324-663528
Bessen, James E., and Michael J. Meurer. The Direct Costs from NPE Disputes. SSRN Scholarly Paper. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network, June 28, 2012. http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2091210.
Bessen, James E., Michael J. Meurer, and Jennifer Laurissa Ford. The Private and Social Costs of Patent Trolls. SSRN Scholarly Paper. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network, September 19, 2011. http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1930272.
“Beware of the Troll | Analysis | The Lawyer.” Accessed March 11, 2014. http://www.thelawyer.com/beware-of-the-troll/116783.article.
“BlackBerry - A Teaching Case for WIPO by Intellectual Property Rese...” Accessed March 12, 2014. http://www.slideshare.net/ibbt/blackberry-a-teaching-case-for-wipo-by-intellectual-property-research-institute-of-australia.
“Fighting Patent Trolls, Tech Giants Seek to Recover Legal Costs - Businessweek.” Accessed March 11, 2014. http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-02-13/fighting-patent-trolls-tech-giants-seek-to-recover-legal-costs.
“Jeffries and Farenthold at SXSW: Keep Patent Trolls Under the Bridge : Roll Call News.” Accessed March 11, 2014. http://www.rollcall.com/news/Jeffries-and-Farenthold-at-SXSW-Keep-Patent-Trolls-Under-the-Bridge-231336-1.html.
“Leahy-Smith America Invents Act.” Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia, March 11, 2014. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leahy-Smith_America_Invents_Act&oldid=599114516.
Magliocca, Gerard N. Blackberries and Barnyards: Patent Trolls and the Perils of Innovation. SSRN Scholarly Paper. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. Accessed March 11, 2014. http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=921252.
McDonough, James F. The Myth of the Patent Troll: An Alternative View of the Function of Patent Dealers in an Idea Economy. SSRN Scholarly Paper. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. Accessed March 11, 2014. http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=959945.
Mullin, Joe. “House Votes 325-91 to Pass Innovation Act, First Anti-Patent-Troll Bill.” Ars Technica, December 5, 2013. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/house-votes-325-91-to-pass-innovation-act-first-anti-patent-troll-bill/.
———. “Supreme Court Looks to Rein in Top Patent Court with Two New Cases.” Ars Technica, January 14, 2014. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/01/supreme-court-looks-to-rein-in-top-patent-court-with-two-new-cases/.
———. “When Is a Patent Claim so Outrageous That Attorney’s Fees Must Be Awarded?” Ars Technica, February 24, 2014. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/02/when-is-a-patent-claim-so-outrageous-that-attorneys-fees-must-be-awarded/.
“Not All Patent Trolls Are Demons.” CNN. Accessed March 11, 2014. http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/21/opinion/holbrook-patent-trolls-demons/index.html.
“NTP Inc. v. Research In Motion, 3:01-Cv-00767 (E.D.Va.) via Docket Alarm.” Accessed March 12, 2014. https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Virginia_Eastern_District_Court/3--01-cv-00767/NTP_Inc._v._Research_In_Motion/.
“Obama Moves to Curb Patent Trolls — but Beware of Unintended Consequences | Briefings | The Lawyer.” Accessed March 11, 2014. http://www.thelawyer.com/briefings/obama-moves-to-curb-patent-trolls-but-beware-of-unintended-consequences/3005939.article.
“On ‘Patent Trolls’ and Injunctive Relief.” Accessed March 12, 2014. http://www.ipfrontline.com/depts/article.aspx?id=10854&deptid=4.
Opinion, Wired. “Google: Don’t Let Trolls Exploit Patent System Flaws | Wired Opinion | Wired.com.” Wired Opinion. Accessed March 12, 2014. http://www.wired.com/opinion/2012/11/google/.
“Opinion: Not All Patent Trolls Are Demons - CNN.com.” Accessed March 11, 2014. http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/21/opinion/holbrook-patent-trolls-demons/index.html.
Parloff, Roger, and Senior Editor. “RPX: Taking on the Patent Trolls.” Fortune. Accessed March 12, 2014. http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/27/news/companies/rpx-patent-trolls.pr.fortune/index.html.
“Patent Assertion and U.S. Innovation, Executive Office of the President, June 2013,” n.d.
“Patent History In The United States.” Accessed March 12, 2014. http://patent.laws.com/patent-history.
“Patent Reform Act of 2009 (2009S. 515).” GovTrack.us. Accessed March 11, 2014. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/s515.
“Patent Reform Becomes Law: The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act | News & Events | Dorsey & Whitney.” Accessed March 12, 2014. http://www.dorsey.com/eu_ip_leahysmith_91411/.
“Patent Troll.” Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia, March 8, 2014. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patent_troll&oldid=598764292.
“Patent Troll Protection Needed for Businesses | TheGazette.” Accessed March 11, 2014. http://thegazette.com/2014/03/10/patent-troll-protection-needed-for-businesses/.
“Patent Trolls.” Electronic Frontier Foundation. Accessed March 11, 2014. https://www.eff.org/issues/resources-patent-troll-victims.
“Patent Trolls and the AIA - a Potential Non-Litigation Business Strategy.” Accessed March 12, 2014. http://intellectualip.com/2012/08/15/patent-trolls-and-the-aia-a-potential-non-litigation-business-strategy/.
“Patent Trolls Target White Castle.” Accessed March 11, 2014. http://www.insidecounsel.com/2014/02/14/patent-trolls-target-white-castle.
“Patent Trolls: A Global Perspective Re: Patent Infringement | The National Law Review.” Accessed March 11, 2014. http://www.natlawreview.com/article/patent-trolls-global-perspective-re-patent-infringement.
“PatentFreedom - NPE Background | PatentFreedom.” Accessed March 12, 2014. https://www.patentfreedom.com/about-npes/background/.
“PatentFreedom - NPE Litigations Over Time | PatentFreedom.” Accessed March 12, 2014. https://www.patentfreedom.com/about-npes/litigations/.
Quittner, Jeremy. “In Supreme Court Patent Troll Cases, You Can Win and Lose.” Inc.com. Accessed March 11, 2014. http://www.inc.com/jeremy-quittner/patent-troll-SCOTUS-hearings.html.
Resources, Inventor. “Patents.” Accessed March 11, 2014. http://www.uspto.gov/patents/index.jsp.
Roberts, Jeff John. “Intellectual Ventures Starts PAC to Lobby for Patent Trolls.” Gigaom, February 21, 2014. http://gigaom.com/2014/02/21/intellectual-ventures-starts-pac-to-lobby-for-patent-trolls/.
“Schedule | Sxsw.com.” SXSW Schedule 2014. Accessed March 12, 2014. http://schedule.sxsw.com/2014/events/event_IAP23873.
Services, Web. “Process for Obtaining a Utility Patent.” Accessed March 12, 2014. http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/index.jsp.
Stohr, Greg, and Susan Decker. “The Supreme Court Takes on Patent Trolls.” BusinessWeek: Technology, February 13, 2014. http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-02-13/fighting-patent-trolls-tech-giants-seek-to-recover-legal-costs.
“Supreme Court Chooses the Middle Ground in the eBay Case | General Patent Corporation.” Accessed March 11, 2014. http://www.generalpatent.com/supreme-court-chooses-middle-ground-ebay-case.
“Text of S. 1145 (110th): Patent Reform Act of 2007 (Reported by Senate Committee Version).” GovTrack.us. Accessed March 11, 2014. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/s1145/text.
“Thank Heavens For Those Patent Trolls.” Forbes. Accessed March 11, 2014. http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/01/24/thank-heavens-for-those-patent-trolls/.
“The Impact of Patent Assertion Entities on Innovation and the Economy.” Accessed March 12, 2014. http://energycommerce.house.gov/hearing/impact-patent-assertion-entities-innovation-and-economy.
“The USPTO Makes Patent Trolls Searchable.” Accessed March 11, 2014. http://www.forbes.com/sites/rakeshsharma/2014/02/21/the-uspto-makes-patent-trolls-searchable/.
“United States Patent Law.” Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia, February 25, 2014. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_patent_law&oldid=597079217.
“When Patents Attack!” This American Life. Accessed March 11, 2014. http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/when-patents-attack.
“When Should Patent Trolls Pay Legal Fees? Supreme Court Reviews ‘objectively Baseless’ Claims — Tech News and Analysis.” Accessed March 11, 2014. http://gigaom.com/2014/02/26/when-should-patent-trolls-pay-legal-fees-supreme-court-reviews-objectively-baseless-claims/.
Woellert, Lorraine. “eBay Takes on the Patent Trolls.” BusinessWeek: Technology, March 29, 2006. http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2006-03-29/ebay-takes-on-the-patent-trolls.
March 12, 2014
“‘Oh, the story of a troll kind of fits ‘cause the whole Billy Goats Gruff thing, it’s someone lying under a bridge they didn’t build, demanding payment from anyone who passed. I said, ‘How about a patent troll?’”
Peter Detkin
Counsel for Intel
It’s a story every child knows: The poor three Billy Goats Gruff that just want to cross the bridge. The evil troll that blocks their way and demands a stiff toll before letting them pass. The final justice that prevails when the biggest and oldest Billy Goat Gruff pushes the troll off the bridge. But aside from childhood bedtime stories, do these evil “trolls” really exist in today’s world, impacting the financial …show more content…
wellbeing of our society?
The term “patent troll” was coined in the late 1990s by Peter Detkin, counsel for Intel. Intel had been hit by a series of lawsuits from companies that did not build anything, yet held patents for products used in manufacturing by Intel (such as semiconductors). In turn, they demanded Intel pay up for using their patents. In a particularly frustrating lawsuit, Detkin called the lawyer filing it a ‘patent extortionist,’ which caused that lawyer to sue for libel and Detkin to search for a better name. As Detkin explains:
“So I had a contest inside Intel. The contest itself was named “The Terrorist”… we got a lot of suggestions but none really fit. But… [my daughter] liked playing with those troll dolls… [I] said, ‘Oh, the story of a troll kind of fits ‘cause the whole Billy Goats Gruff thing, it’s someone lying under a bridge they didn’t build, demanding payment from anyone who passed. I said, ‘How about a patent troll?’” 1
The name stuck and the problem grew. As illustrated in the graph below from PatentFreedom.com, from 2004 to 2013 the number of patent infringement lawsuits has grown drastically, especially in the later years.
2
According to RPX statistics, patent trolls (also known as NPEs – non-practicing entities) filed over 3,600 suits in 2013 alone, up 19% from 2012. Of the patent suits filed in 2012, over 67% of them were NPE-related.3 For many titans of industry – especially the tech industry – these suits are more than just distraction. Patent trolls sued wireless carrier AT&T over 54 times in 2013 - more than once a week! As the recent Fortune magazine article entitled RPX: Taking on the patent trolls explains, “AT&T is no anomaly. Google was hit with 43 NPE suits last year; Verizon, 42; Apple, 41; Samsung and Amazon, 39 each; Dell and Sony, 34 each; Huawei, 32; BlackBerry, 31. Every brand on this unenviable top 10 list was sued by an NPE at least once every 12 days.”4
But how did this phenomenon come about? And, even more importantly, how has it been able to flourish in today’s society? To answer these questions, we first examine what a patent troll is.
A “patent troll” is new name for an old – albeit, arguably escalating – problem. Historically, as long as patents have existed in the United States they have been fraught with controversy. Virtually every American inventor who pioneered a major innovation has had to deal with litigation or controversy surrounding his (or her) patent. The inventor of the telegraph, Samuel FB Morse, bitterly complained about “patent pirates” and the hours he had to spend in court proving he was the inventor. The Wright brothers refused to license their airplane patents (until forced to by the US government), and were publicly vilified for it. Henry Ford had to defend himself in court from a group of financiers claiming they held a patent (purchased from another inventor) that covered gas-powered automobiles.
Just what is a patent anyway?
According to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), a patent is an intellectual property right granted by the US Government to an inventor “to exclude others from making, using, offering for sale, or selling the invention throughout the United States or importing the invention into the United States for a limited time in exchange for public disclosure of the invention when the patent is granted.”5 There are three types of patents: utility, design and plant patents.
Utility patents (also known as nonprovisional utility patents) cover “new and useful” processes, machines, articles of manufacture, compositions of matter, and “any new and useful improvement thereof.” (There is a special classification under utility patents called provisional patents to help inventors protect new ideas and inventions that have not been fully developed yet. However, provisional patent protection only lasts for twelve months, and afterward an inventor must file for a nonprovisional utility patent to continue to receive protection.) Design patents cover “new, original and ornamental design for an article of manufacture.” Whereas a utility patent is designed to protect a new invention or a functional improvement on an existing invention, a design patent is used when the basic product already exists but is being improved upon in style. Plant patents cover the invention or discovery of any “distinct and new variety of plant.” In addition, USPTO requires the invention must be novel, nonobvious, adequately described or enabled, and claimed by the inventor in clear and definite terms in order for a patent to be issued. Classes of patents include chemical patents, biological patents, business method patents, and software patents. (Business method patents have become increasingly common since the State Street Bank v. Signature Financial case of 1998, which established precedent for algorithm-based business methods to be patentable.)
The process to actually obtain a patent is lengthy and complex, as illustrated by this patent approval process chart from USPTO.
6
Oftentimes it is necessary for the inventor to engage the help of a registered patent attorney or agent to complete the complicated patent application and describe the invention in the precise technical terms required by the USPTO. The application is almost always rejected upon first submission – the USPTO rejects about 95% of them for reasons based on claims of prior art or lack of specificity. If the USPTO denies a patent application, the inventor has the right to appeal to the USPTO Board of Appeals. Once granted, utility and plant patent protection usually are valid for twenty years (from the date of filing the application), while design patent protection is valid for fourteen years (from the date of issuance of the patent). Utility and plant patents require payments of maintenance fees at scheduled times to maintain legal protection. During this time period, the patent holder has the exclusive right to use the invention. This means a holder can prohibit others from using it (or any product that is “substantially the same”), license it to other parties for a fee, or sue for legal remedies (for an injunction and/or to recover damages) from other parties using it without permission. It is important to note that in the United States, patents are governed by federal law and generally only enforceable through civil lawsuits. Ultimately, the purpose of a patent is to protect the rights of an inventor because of the fact that it is unlikely he would be paid fairly for the cost to produce his invention in a free market.
Yet another important aspect of US patents worthy of note is that they are “territorial” – meaning they do not confer any protection rights outside of the United States. If an inventor wants international protection, at the very least he needs to go through an international patents process – for many countries governed by the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) under the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) of the United Nations. To be fully protected for the exclusive rights to make, use, and sell and his invention, the investor must get a country-specific patents in every single country he wants to operate in by filing a separate application in each.
US Patent Governmental Regulations
The foundation for patent law in the United States is under Article One, Section 8 of the US Constitution, which states: “The Congress shall have power ... To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries…” On April 10, 1790, Congress passed the first Patent Act, titled “An Act to promote the progress of useful Arts.” This was passed to grant inventors “sole and exclusive right and liberty of making, constructing, using and vending to others to be used” their inventions. The act was intended to grant patents for “useful Arts” only, for inventions under the aegis of artisans and skilled workers. It also established the Patent Board (consisting of the Attorney General, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of War) to examine patent applications, and – for inventions found to be of use and importance – issue patents. What was the first US patent to be issued, you may ask? It was granted to Samuel Hopkins for his invention “Making Pot and Pearl Ashes,” better known as potash (an industrial chemical used in a variety of products, including soap-making and gunpowder). Clearly patent law has evolved. In today’s day and age, it is highly doubtful he would succeed patenting his “Pot and Pearl Ashes” as it was neither novel nor nonobvious!
The first modification to US patent law came in 1793, when Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson clarified the definition (and outlined wording for the statue similar to the wording still used today), stating that for an invention to be patented it must be “any new and useful art, machine, manufacture or composition of matter.” An important nuance in both the Patent Act of 1790 and 1793 was that the subject of a patent application “not [be] known or used before the application.” This established a basis for defense in infringement actions, where the defendant can quote: “the thing, thus secured by patent, was not originally discovered by the patentee, but had been in use…” – in other words, the patent is not valid because it covers an invention that was known about prior or in prior use before that particular patent was issued, commonly referred to as “prior art.”
However, it was not until the 1952 Act that patent law started to truly reflect how we know it today, with an amendment introducing the “non-obvious” criteria and clarification of a patent holder’s right as one that excludes others from using, making, or selling the invention. In more recent years, patent legislation has come to the forefront again, with the failed Patent Reform Acts of 2007 and 2009, and the successful America Invents Act (AIA) of 2011. The AIA was signed into law on September 16, 2011 and “represents the most significant change to the US patent system since 1952.”7 The most significant aspect of the Act is its change of the United States from a “first to invent” system to a “first-inventor-to-file” (FITF) system. In essence, this means that a patent is awarded to the inventor who is first to file the patent application, where previously a patent was awarded to the inventor who could prove s/he invented it first (regardless of who filed).
The AIA is perceived to have both negative and positive implications for patent trolls. AIA section 299, commonly referred to as the “joinder” clause, limits the number of accusers in a single patent infringement suit, thus hampering the traditional litigation strategies used by many patent trolls. On the flip side, the AIA opens a potential new strategy for patent trolls as well. Section 102(a)(2), which became effective as of March 16, 2013, states: ““A person shall be entitled to a patent unless…the claimed invention was described in a patent issued…or in an application published…in which the patent or application…names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.” It also contains a disclosure exception in section 102(b)(2) which states: “A disclosure shall not be prior art to a claimed invention under subsection (a)(2) if…the subject matter disclosed and the claimed invention, not later than the effective filing date of the claimed invention, were owned by the same person or subject to an obligation of assignment to the same person.”8
The article Patent trolls and the AIA – a Potential non-Litigation Business Strategy best explains section 102 by the picture below:
9
This means the date “On or after March 16, 2013 an issued patent or pending patent application that would be prior art to a new application has potential value to the applicant for a new patent. Thus, the date of March 16 can be a ‘bridge’ between the troll’s patent or application having no value to target A and a value that may be large…”10 While this may seem like a stretch, if the joinder clause of AIA section 299 is successful in thwarting patent trolls’ current litigation strategy, this may be the one of the only options left for them. The March 16, 2013, date has come and gone (almost exactly a year ago), but conclusive evidence on whether this is an effective strategy for patent trolls remains to be seen.
While the US Constitution authorizes Congress to grant patents, it is Title 35 of the United States Code that governs all aspects of patent law in the United States. Title 35 has four parts: Part I establishes the USPTO and outlines its responsibilities. Part II outlines the criteria for patentability that an invention must meet to be eligible for a patent. Part III concerns patent protection rights, while Part IV concerns the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) for international patent matters.
Within US patent litigation, District Courts litigate patent infringement suits and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) reviews decisions of the both the USPTO and the District Courts. Cases can be appealed again in the Supreme Court.
The Rise of NPEs
Because a patent holder can enter in to a licensing agreement with a licensee to grant the right to sell, use, make and/or import the invention (usually in return for a fee or royalty), it has given rise to a new type of company – the non-practicing entity or NPE. Depending on the context, these companies can also be referred to as patent holding companies or patent assertion entities (PAEs). What distinguishes a NPE is its “non-practice,” meaning that it does not sell any products or services of its own. Its sole purpose is obtain patents (usually through purchasing them on the open market or through business acquisitions) and then use them to bring suit against companies that sell products or services that may infringe against their acquired patents. In a nutshell, NPEs do not practice the technology covered by their patents. While the extreme statistics from the beginning of this paper illustrate the rapid rise of NPEs, there is an additional, more serious, implication. Oftentimes patent trolls do not need to even file suit; the threat of litigation alone is enough to force businesses to settle with large payments out of court. Although NPEs filed over 3,000 suits in 2012, more than 100,000 NPE-related suits were threatened – over 33 times the number brought! 11
The cost patent trolls have on industry cannot be understated. The below table from the Boston University School of Law entitled The Direct Costs from NPE Disputes, published in 2012 and revised in 2013, shows that the payments from companies to NPEs and inventors exceed one billion dollars annually. In the aggregate, over the past 20 years NPE-related suits have cost the economy over half a trillion dollars – over $300 billion of that in the past five years alone.
12
Oftentimes companies are forced into settling with NPEs to avoid the costs of litigation. Another table from the study shows that while the mean total non-litigation cost is $29.75 million, the comparable cost of litigation would be almost twice as high at $58.38 million.
13
Companies, especially in the tech sector, often cite these costs as a “tax on innovation” that hinders business practices and increases prices for consumers.14
The rise of NPEs in recent years can (at least partially) be attributed to the bursting of the dot-com bubble in 2000, where the accumulated patents proliferated by dot-coms as a sort of venture-capital collateral were suddenly worthless. These patents were then sold by bankruptcy courts at bargain-basement prices into the eagerly awaiting hands of “entrepreneurial lawyers and limited partnerships.”15
The real problem with NPEs is that by virtue of their “non-practicing” status, the companies who are being sued often are left without any bargaining power. Prior to the age of NPEs, companies could use their patents as leverage; “Patents once were a defense mechanism by big companies that used their massive IP portfolios to reach cross-licensing deals as a means of insuring against litigation from competitors.”16 But as more patents fall into the hands of NPEs and PAEs, that business model becomes a thing of the past, especially in the technology industry.
Adding furthermore to the problem is the proliferation of vague (usually business method) patents. “Tech companies eager to stake a claim on a snippet of code or bit of technology game the system by blithely filing thousands of patent applications, often for technology that 's already in widespread use, or for code or methods that are so obvious that they can 't pass the no-brainer test. Most often these applications cite no prior art -- that is, they claim that nothing on earth resembles what the patent would protect…”17 Given the overworked USPTO can often be browbeaten into eventually approving an application, these patents have the potential to be successfully issued (and thus turn in to an NPE’s bread and butter, as the next case so aptly shows).
Recent Case Law
Two landmark cases occurred in the 2000s regarding patent trolls, the first Research in Motion v. NTP, Inc. (also known as the “Blackberry” case) beginning in 2000, and the second the eBay Inc v. MercExchange LLC case beginning in 2006.
The RIM v NTP case began when NTP, a Virginia-based NPE holding multiple patents for electronic mail transmissions and components – or, as described in the BU case study referenced above, a company “founded by a failed wireless e-mail innovator named Campana and his patent attorney”18 – sent notice of their wireless email patents to multiple companies (including RIM) offering to license their patents to them.
None of these companies (including RIM) paid notice or took a license. NTP then brought an infringement suit against RIM in District Court. The jury found the NTP patents valid and RIM was found to have infringed them. In addition to $33 million for damages, the judge ordered RIM to pay an additional $20 million in punitive damages (since their infringement was “willful”) and issued an injunction that would have shut down the entire US BlackBerry system. Further litigation ensued, and eventually RIM was forced to settle with NTP to the tune of $612.5 million.
At the crux of the issue was the patent criterion of “prior art;” even though RIM had no notion of Campana’s inventions and patents until after they had developed the Blackberry technology, NTP had obtained such vaguely worded patents that they could be deemed to cover parts of software used in the Blackberry device. Furthermore, although too late to help Blackberry, it was discovered that “a few months after the November, 2002 ruling, during a reexamination of the NTP patents, the USPTO found that there existed …show more content…
prior art not considered in the earlier trial…”19
The moral of the Blackerry story? Although a “patently absurd” tale, NTP’s ultimate success and huge payoff paved the way for throngs of patent infringement suits to come.
The importance of the case eBay Inc v.
MercExchange LLC to patent holding companies centered on their ability to successfully gain (or at least have real power to threaten) injunctions against the companies they were suing. The Supreme Court heard an appeal by eBay’s appeal of an injunction granted to MercExchange by the CAFC. The background on this case began when eBay sought to license the patent for an electronic exchange from MerExchange, who owned the patent, and was refused. MercExchange sued eBay for infringement, and won damages in District Court of $35 million. However, following the jury verdict, MercExchange had their motion for a permanent injunction denied. The CACF then reversed that ruling, stating that courts will issue permanent injunctions against patent infringement as a “general
rule.”
Central to the case was the threat of injunction – “An eBay win at the high court would curb the courts ' ability to grant injunctions, thereby ‘lessening the hijacking effect’ of patent trolls.”20 Ultimately, the Supreme Court set aside the CAFC ruling, which prevented a curbing of the courts’ ability to grant injunctions. The reason the Supreme Court did so? Both the District Court and CAFC departed from the four-factor test for equitable injunctive relief (irreparable injury; whether remedies such as money damages are adequate; the balance of hardships between patent owner and infringer; and whether a permanent injunction would disserve the public interest) by coming to the conclusion: “a 'plaintiff 's willingness to license its patents ' and 'its lack of commercial activity in practicing the patents ' would be sufficient to establish that the patent holder would not suffer irreparable harm if an injunction did not issue.”21 The Supreme Court rejected this conclusion, as nothing in the Patent Act warranted such a departure. “Although the District applied the four-factor test, its holding would have excluded from the injunctive relief remedy ‘a broad swath of cases’… [In a victory for] patent holding companies, the Supreme Court rejected the notion that either not practicing the patented invention or granting a license under the patent would automatically disqualify a patent owner from seeking a permanent injunction… one can anticipate that, like copyright cases, most patent cases will result in a permanent injunction, once infringement is established.”22
The Supreme Court has another two cases remaining in its docket for 2014 regarding patent trolls: Akami Technologies v. Limelight Networks which centers on the concept of “divided infringement,” and Nautilis v. Biosig Instruments, another prime example for “vague patents.”23 While their outcomes are “patently” uncertain – an equivoque only the USPTO could love – the decisions are certain to add more fuel to the already blazing fire of NPE-related controversy.
Keeping the Troll Under the Bridge
Whether deserved or not, the tide of public opinion is definitively against patent trolls.
Over the past few years, government officials have been quick to attack them, with President Obama terming them “hijackers” and “extortionists” in 2012, inducing a spate of anti-troll bills to hit the House and Senate. Currently there are five major NPE-related bills pending in congress, from the Patent Litigation and Innovation Act (HR 2639), to the Transparency in Assertion of Patents Act, to the Patent Quality Improvement Act.
The act getting the most press – the Innovation Act (which passed the House in December, 2013 and will be debated the Senate this year) – was spearheaded by House Judiciary Chairman Robert Goodlatte, and is intended to “raise the bar” for those filing patent litigation alleging infringement. It includes “several transparency provisions for plaintiffs, while giving judges greater discretion to limit discovery and award legal fees to the victorious party… [and] would expand a program at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office that allows plaintiffs to challenge the validity of certain software patents related to the financial services industry for a much lower cost…”24
Ironically, while on the forefront of the Innovation Act the issue of fee-shifting in patent cases has also been heard in Supreme Court, with the cases Octane Fitness v. Icon Health and Highmark v. Allcare Management argued at the end of February, 2014. Both cases “involve defendants who prevailed over patent-holders but didn 't get what they wanted from the [CAFC].... In Octane Fitness, the defendant didn 't get a fee award; the company is arguing that the Federal Circuit 's standard for such awards is an impossible one to meet and must be changed. In Highmark… [the judge] described Allcare as displaying ‘the sort of conduct that gives the term 'patent troll ' a negative connotation.’ Despite Allcare 's bad behavior, the award was mostly overturned by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Now Highmark is arguing that the Federal Circuit should give more deference to trial court judges in matters of fee awards.”25
The issue of patent trolls is pervasive in the current political environment; within the past two years entities ranging from the Federal Trade Commission, to the US Justice Department, to a White House task force have all launched independent studies of the NPE problem. In November 2013, the Energy and Commerce Committee held a hearing titled “The Impact of Patent Assertion Entities on Innovation and the Economy,” aimed at “investigating recent trends in patent assertion practices to gain a better understanding on their impact on businesses.”26 Speakers included executive officers from the Texas Hotel & Lodging Association, Newegg, and White Castle. On March 7, 2014, South by Southwest (SXSW – an annual interactive arts and music festival held in Austin, Texas) held a session entitled “Clubbing the Patent Trolls: How We can Fight Back” with panelists including Congress member Goodlatte and Mark Cuban. 27
In Defense of the Troll
Patent trolls have their fair share of defenders as well.
In the article Not all patent trolls are demons in CNN Opinion, Timothy Holbrook claims what patent trolls do – paying inventors – is “laudable.” Instead of blaming patent trolls, he blames the problem on the USPTO issuing improper and invalid patents, and the extreme costs of discovery in trying to defend against infringement lawsuits. As he explains, “these are not troll problems; they are litigation and patent quality issues. Scapegoating trolls risks disrupting the useful compensatory purpose they serve and may cause unintended consequences in non-troll litigation.”28
Avik Roy, guest contributor for Forbes Opinion, entitled his recent piece Thank Heavens For Those Patent Trolls, opining “I weep for the patent trolls as the lynch mobs gather… they serve a genuine need in the marketplace. Patent trolls are often the buyer of last resort for an inventor who cannot afford to develop his or her invention into a product.”29
Alexander Poltorak, a Russian-born American author and scholar, as well as the founder of the American Innovators for Patent Reform (AIPR – founded to oppose the Patent Reform Act of 2007) is an advocate for the rights of NPEs to sue for injunctive relief, arguing “to be a troll one needs to (a) buy a patent, (b) not practice the patented invention, and (c) assert the acquired patent… this definition is patently absurd… Element (a) — buying a patent — is unfounded because it is common knowledge that a patent is personal property, which may be bought, sold, mortgaged, or otherwise monetized… Element (c) — asserting a patent — is even more absurd because what else can you do with a patent besides assert it? Whether a patentee licenses a patent or asserts it in litigation, both are really assertions. A ‘carrot license’ is nothing but a ‘stick license’ in disguise, because a patent is an exclusionary right and the only thing a patent owner can do with the patent is to assert it to exclude others! To summarize, the so-called ‘patent trolls’ are stuff of myths and legends, not of sound reason. The arguments to take an injunctive relief away from ‘patent trolls,’ ie, non-practicing inventors, are based on fuzzy logic. Let us hope that reason and sound logic prevail.”30
And clearly patent trolls are advocates for themselves. As PatentFreedom states, “To even the rhetorical score, defenders of NPEs have begun to paint large technology companies as ‘serial infringers’ that deserve the onslaught of patent infringement litigation they currently face.”31 The poster child of patent trolls is Nathan Myhrvold of Intellectual Ventures (IV), a company that has spawned thousands more shell companies to pursue patent infringement lawsuits. IV recently announced their plan to start a political action committee to lobby for patent trolls, given the increased exposure and multiple NPE/PAE-related bills circulating in Congress right now. As Jeff Roberts of Gigaom reports, “It’s a good bet… the [PAC] will target Congressional freshman with messages about ‘protecting property’ and ‘supporting innovation.’”32
Paying the Toll…
Depending on the historical context, patents have been seen as evil tools to protect monopolies to invaluable and necessary protection for the inventor. As Supreme Court Justice Robert Jackson wrote in 1949, "The only valid patent is one which this Court has not been able to get its hands on." In the 1970s fear of diminishing US innovation led Congress to enact legislation increasing patent protection, yet less than fifty years later there are multiple bills in Congress to decrease it. While critics can argue away that patents are now granted too easily and improperly, once granted, a patent confers its protections to whoever holds it – trolls and non-trolls alike.
References
“10 Biggest Patent Troll Targets in Business - Fortune Features.” Accessed March 11, 2014. http://features.blogs.fortune.cnn.com/2014/02/27/patent-troll-targets/.
“35 U.S.C. 102: Conditions for Patentability; Novelty, After the AIA, Nov. 2011 (BitLaw).” Accessed March 12, 2014. http://www.bitlaw.com/source/35usc/102.html.
Allison, John R., Emerson H. Tiller, Samantha Zyontz, and Tristian Bligh. Patent Litigation and the Internet. SSRN Scholarly Paper. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network, January 20, 2012. http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1989106.
Bachman, Katy. “Senate Bill Targeting Patent Trolls on Fast Track.” AdWeek. Accessed March 11, 2014. http://www.adweek.com/news/technology/senate-bill-targeting-patent-trolls-fast-track-156019.
Beatty & Samuelson, Business Law and the Legal Environment, Fifth Edition, ISBN 0-324-663528
Bessen, James E., and Michael J. Meurer. The Direct Costs from NPE Disputes. SSRN Scholarly Paper. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network, June 28, 2012. http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=2091210.
Bessen, James E., Michael J. Meurer, and Jennifer Laurissa Ford. The Private and Social Costs of Patent Trolls. SSRN Scholarly Paper. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network, September 19, 2011. http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1930272.
“Beware of the Troll | Analysis | The Lawyer.” Accessed March 11, 2014. http://www.thelawyer.com/beware-of-the-troll/116783.article.
“BlackBerry - A Teaching Case for WIPO by Intellectual Property Rese...” Accessed March 12, 2014. http://www.slideshare.net/ibbt/blackberry-a-teaching-case-for-wipo-by-intellectual-property-research-institute-of-australia.
“Fighting Patent Trolls, Tech Giants Seek to Recover Legal Costs - Businessweek.” Accessed March 11, 2014. http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-02-13/fighting-patent-trolls-tech-giants-seek-to-recover-legal-costs.
“Jeffries and Farenthold at SXSW: Keep Patent Trolls Under the Bridge : Roll Call News.” Accessed March 11, 2014. http://www.rollcall.com/news/Jeffries-and-Farenthold-at-SXSW-Keep-Patent-Trolls-Under-the-Bridge-231336-1.html.
“Leahy-Smith America Invents Act.” Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia, March 11, 2014. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Leahy-Smith_America_Invents_Act&oldid=599114516.
Magliocca, Gerard N. Blackberries and Barnyards: Patent Trolls and the Perils of Innovation. SSRN Scholarly Paper. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. Accessed March 11, 2014. http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=921252.
McDonough, James F. The Myth of the Patent Troll: An Alternative View of the Function of Patent Dealers in an Idea Economy. SSRN Scholarly Paper. Rochester, NY: Social Science Research Network. Accessed March 11, 2014. http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=959945.
Mullin, Joe. “House Votes 325-91 to Pass Innovation Act, First Anti-Patent-Troll Bill.” Ars Technica, December 5, 2013. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/12/house-votes-325-91-to-pass-innovation-act-first-anti-patent-troll-bill/.
———. “Supreme Court Looks to Rein in Top Patent Court with Two New Cases.” Ars Technica, January 14, 2014. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/01/supreme-court-looks-to-rein-in-top-patent-court-with-two-new-cases/.
———. “When Is a Patent Claim so Outrageous That Attorney’s Fees Must Be Awarded?” Ars Technica, February 24, 2014. http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/02/when-is-a-patent-claim-so-outrageous-that-attorneys-fees-must-be-awarded/.
“Not All Patent Trolls Are Demons.” CNN. Accessed March 11, 2014. http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/21/opinion/holbrook-patent-trolls-demons/index.html.
“NTP Inc. v. Research In Motion, 3:01-Cv-00767 (E.D.Va.) via Docket Alarm.” Accessed March 12, 2014. https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/Virginia_Eastern_District_Court/3--01-cv-00767/NTP_Inc._v._Research_In_Motion/.
“Obama Moves to Curb Patent Trolls — but Beware of Unintended Consequences | Briefings | The Lawyer.” Accessed March 11, 2014. http://www.thelawyer.com/briefings/obama-moves-to-curb-patent-trolls-but-beware-of-unintended-consequences/3005939.article.
“On ‘Patent Trolls’ and Injunctive Relief.” Accessed March 12, 2014. http://www.ipfrontline.com/depts/article.aspx?id=10854&deptid=4.
Opinion, Wired. “Google: Don’t Let Trolls Exploit Patent System Flaws | Wired Opinion | Wired.com.” Wired Opinion. Accessed March 12, 2014. http://www.wired.com/opinion/2012/11/google/.
“Opinion: Not All Patent Trolls Are Demons - CNN.com.” Accessed March 11, 2014. http://www.cnn.com/2014/02/21/opinion/holbrook-patent-trolls-demons/index.html.
Parloff, Roger, and Senior Editor. “RPX: Taking on the Patent Trolls.” Fortune. Accessed March 12, 2014. http://money.cnn.com/2014/02/27/news/companies/rpx-patent-trolls.pr.fortune/index.html.
“Patent Assertion and U.S. Innovation, Executive Office of the President, June 2013,” n.d.
“Patent History In The United States.” Accessed March 12, 2014. http://patent.laws.com/patent-history.
“Patent Reform Act of 2009 (2009S. 515).” GovTrack.us. Accessed March 11, 2014. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/111/s515.
“Patent Reform Becomes Law: The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act | News & Events | Dorsey & Whitney.” Accessed March 12, 2014. http://www.dorsey.com/eu_ip_leahysmith_91411/.
“Patent Troll.” Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia, March 8, 2014. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patent_troll&oldid=598764292.
“Patent Troll Protection Needed for Businesses | TheGazette.” Accessed March 11, 2014. http://thegazette.com/2014/03/10/patent-troll-protection-needed-for-businesses/.
“Patent Trolls.” Electronic Frontier Foundation. Accessed March 11, 2014. https://www.eff.org/issues/resources-patent-troll-victims.
“Patent Trolls and the AIA - a Potential Non-Litigation Business Strategy.” Accessed March 12, 2014. http://intellectualip.com/2012/08/15/patent-trolls-and-the-aia-a-potential-non-litigation-business-strategy/.
“Patent Trolls Target White Castle.” Accessed March 11, 2014. http://www.insidecounsel.com/2014/02/14/patent-trolls-target-white-castle.
“Patent Trolls: A Global Perspective Re: Patent Infringement | The National Law Review.” Accessed March 11, 2014. http://www.natlawreview.com/article/patent-trolls-global-perspective-re-patent-infringement.
“PatentFreedom - NPE Background | PatentFreedom.” Accessed March 12, 2014. https://www.patentfreedom.com/about-npes/background/.
“PatentFreedom - NPE Litigations Over Time | PatentFreedom.” Accessed March 12, 2014. https://www.patentfreedom.com/about-npes/litigations/.
Quittner, Jeremy. “In Supreme Court Patent Troll Cases, You Can Win and Lose.” Inc.com. Accessed March 11, 2014. http://www.inc.com/jeremy-quittner/patent-troll-SCOTUS-hearings.html.
Resources, Inventor. “Patents.” Accessed March 11, 2014. http://www.uspto.gov/patents/index.jsp.
Roberts, Jeff John. “Intellectual Ventures Starts PAC to Lobby for Patent Trolls.” Gigaom, February 21, 2014. http://gigaom.com/2014/02/21/intellectual-ventures-starts-pac-to-lobby-for-patent-trolls/.
“Schedule | Sxsw.com.” SXSW Schedule 2014. Accessed March 12, 2014. http://schedule.sxsw.com/2014/events/event_IAP23873.
Services, Web. “Process for Obtaining a Utility Patent.” Accessed March 12, 2014. http://www.uspto.gov/patents/process/index.jsp.
Stohr, Greg, and Susan Decker. “The Supreme Court Takes on Patent Trolls.” BusinessWeek: Technology, February 13, 2014. http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-02-13/fighting-patent-trolls-tech-giants-seek-to-recover-legal-costs.
“Supreme Court Chooses the Middle Ground in the eBay Case | General Patent Corporation.” Accessed March 11, 2014. http://www.generalpatent.com/supreme-court-chooses-middle-ground-ebay-case.
“Text of S. 1145 (110th): Patent Reform Act of 2007 (Reported by Senate Committee Version).” GovTrack.us. Accessed March 11, 2014. https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/110/s1145/text.
“Thank Heavens For Those Patent Trolls.” Forbes. Accessed March 11, 2014. http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/01/24/thank-heavens-for-those-patent-trolls/.
“The Impact of Patent Assertion Entities on Innovation and the Economy.” Accessed March 12, 2014. http://energycommerce.house.gov/hearing/impact-patent-assertion-entities-innovation-and-economy.
“The USPTO Makes Patent Trolls Searchable.” Accessed March 11, 2014. http://www.forbes.com/sites/rakeshsharma/2014/02/21/the-uspto-makes-patent-trolls-searchable/.
“United States Patent Law.” Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia, February 25, 2014. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_patent_law&oldid=597079217.
“When Patents Attack!” This American Life. Accessed March 11, 2014. http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/when-patents-attack.
“When Should Patent Trolls Pay Legal Fees? Supreme Court Reviews ‘objectively Baseless’ Claims — Tech News and Analysis.” Accessed March 11, 2014. http://gigaom.com/2014/02/26/when-should-patent-trolls-pay-legal-fees-supreme-court-reviews-objectively-baseless-claims/.
Woellert, Lorraine. “eBay Takes on the Patent Trolls.” BusinessWeek: Technology, March 29, 2006. http://www.businessweek.com/stories/2006-03-29/ebay-takes-on-the-patent-trolls.