US Patent Litigation Study - Facts and Analysis at your paws...

With the internet “fact mill” being what it is, the IPKat was pleased to see some refreshing scientific analysis of patent litigation in the US by the good people at PwC. The post can be downloaded from this page, which presents an overview of the report itself, which is a significant, but not unmanageable, 35 pages.

As the res (largely) ipsa loquitur, this moggy will extract only a couple of salient details. Overall, 2012 appeared to be a particularly bumper year for US patent actions with increases all round, reflecting an overall compound annual growth rate of 7% since 1991.

Of particular interest was the analysis of non-practising entities (NPEs) and the first effects of the America Invents Act (AIA - slightly worryingly referred to on page 3 as the America Invests Act, reflecting perhaps the concerns of the authors). For example, it appears that University or non-profit NPEs have the highest success rate among NPE litigants, with median damages awards to individuals being lower than other types of NPEs. The last 18 years has seen an average median award of $5.5 million, with NPEs collecting a premium as compared to practicing entities. Some of the recent burst in actions appears to be due to changes introduced by the AIA: an ‘anti-joinder’ provision, brought in on 16 September 2011 constrained the number of defendants that could be named in the same lawsuit. This results in more cases but with fewer defendants per case.

Overall US patent litigation appears to be a booming market. Whether that is a good thing the IPKat will leave to the comment board, while Merpel scurries for cover.

US Patent Litigation Study - Facts and Analysis at your paws... US Patent Litigation Study - Facts and Analysis at your paws... Reviewed by Darren Smyth on Monday, June 24, 2013 Rating: 5

No comments:

All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here:

Powered by Blogger.