Patent Warfare
Patent Warfare
Per your request I reviewed the lawsuit notice and believe our company can handle the matter without litigation saving us time and money. Our first course of action should be to propose collaboration with the accuser in order to continue innovation. If the accuser turns out to be a patent troll or in other terms in the business of strictly making money on infringement cases we will have the case arbitrated by a subject matter expert.
I recommend we offer the accuser a chance to collaborate with a business which recently launched a great new product supported by Apple iOS and Google Android platforms. Instead of being a killer of creativity the accuser might be a legitimate technology developer such as our company. The accuser may be more interested in developing newer and better versions of its product instead of getting a onetime payout. Collaboration will save both parties time and money by avoiding a long and expensive court case. It will also benefit both parties to share research and new ideas (Laudon, 2012). Nokia and HTC are a recent example of collaborations as they entered “into a collaboration agreement to provide access to each other’s patented technology to explore future projects” (Shankar, 2014). Working together will provide our business with new innovations making us more competitive. New innovations will develop an opportunity for new registered patents to our company, providing a defense system for possible future law suits. Licensing fees and royalties from new innovations will be collected by both parties creating new revenue. Avoiding court, continuing to grow and collecting revenue makes for a much more favorable scenario.
Unfortunately most infringement lawsuits are made by patent trolls. They are companies created solely to hoard patents and using them for the purpose of getting a payout. They sue multiple companies at once with vague explanation of infringement against their patent (Glass, Sydell, 2011). Patent
Per your request I reviewed the lawsuit notice and believe our company can handle the matter without litigation saving us time and money. Our first course of action should be to propose collaboration with the accuser in order to continue innovation. If the accuser turns out to be a patent troll or in other terms in the business of strictly making money on infringement cases we will have the case arbitrated by a subject matter expert.
I recommend we offer the accuser a chance to collaborate with a business which recently launched a great new product supported by Apple iOS and Google Android platforms. Instead of being a killer of creativity the accuser might be a legitimate technology developer such as our company. The accuser may be more interested in developing newer and better versions of its product instead of getting a onetime payout. Collaboration will save both parties time and money by avoiding a long and expensive court case. It will also benefit both parties to share research and new ideas (Laudon, 2012). Nokia and HTC are a recent example of collaborations as they entered “into a collaboration agreement to provide access to each other’s patented technology to explore future projects” (Shankar, 2014). Working together will provide our business with new innovations making us more competitive. New innovations will develop an opportunity for new registered patents to our company, providing a defense system for possible future law suits. Licensing fees and royalties from new innovations will be collected by both parties creating new revenue. Avoiding court, continuing to grow and collecting revenue makes for a much more favorable scenario.
Unfortunately most infringement lawsuits are made by patent trolls. They are companies created solely to hoard patents and using them for the purpose of getting a payout. They sue multiple companies at once with vague explanation of infringement against their patent (Glass, Sydell, 2011). Patent
References: Bender, J. G. (2010) ARBITRATION- An ideal Way to Resolve High-Tech Industry Disputes. Dispute Journal, 65(4), 44-52 Glass, I., & Sydell, L. (2011, July 22). 441 When patents attack! This American Life Podcast. Podcast retrieved from http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/when-patents-attack Laudon, K. L. (2012). Management Information Systems, 12/e for DeVry University. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc. Lelievre-Acosta, B. (2010, January 1). A Cost-Effective Alternative. WIPO Magazine. Retrieved July 12, 2014, from http://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2010/01/article_0008.html Shankar, S. (2014, February 8). Nokia And HTC End Patent Disputes, Enter Into Agreement To Collaborate On Access To Patented Technology. International Business Times. Retrieved July 11, 2014, from http://www.ibtimes.com/nokia-htc-end-patent-disputes-enter-agreement-collaborate-access-patented-technology-1554166 Walters, E. (2014, January 23). Tech Companies Fight Back Against Patent Lawsuits. The New York Times. Retrieved July 10, 2014, from http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/24/us/tech-companies-fight-back-against-patent-lawsuits.html?_r=0 Appendix “Speed and cost are usually listed among the primary advantages of arbitration, for good reason. In March 2013, the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”) published results of a survey that found resolving technology disputes in arbitration saved, on average, more than 60% in time and up to 55% in costs, compared to litigation”. “IP litigation before national courts can undeniably be very expensive and lengthy. The table below describes the average length and costs of patent litigation in various jurisdictions” (Lelievre-Acosta, 2010).