tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post7236400204112471167..comments2024-03-29T12:23:31.959+00:00Comments on The IPKat: The rise of patent monetization entities Part One: the situation in the USVerónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-37102255862836291432013-04-17T22:29:28.862+01:002013-04-17T22:29:28.862+01:00Wayne, thanks for your suggestion. If I can find r...Wayne, thanks for your suggestion. If I can find reliable data for Canada, I will include them in the next post (if you wish to suggest any paper/study/research which could provide useful information on the issue, please do so - your help is truly appreciated).<br /><br />StefanoStefano Barazzahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03305481038339902614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-88951976336891313062013-04-17T04:47:47.523+01:002013-04-17T04:47:47.523+01:00I'd like to suggest that you also consider ext...<br />I'd like to suggest that you also consider extending your study to include Patent Litigation in Canada. The patent litigation landscape here is far different, and a comparison may be useful.<br /><br />Wayne<br />Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18354974465136846413noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-23910195091428528352013-04-12T05:27:25.080+01:002013-04-12T05:27:25.080+01:00There is but one benefit of trolls and that is the...There is but one benefit of trolls and that is they put patent law to test by asserting or by trying to assert patents, from frivolous to really ground-breaking ones. But this benefit fades in face of the number of disadvantages that they add to overall system, and the worst disadvantage is that they upset the startup ecosystem. <br /><br />Indian patents act's Section 85 allows, the controller or a person interested to apply for, revocation of patent for non-working. If a patent assignee is "not working" the invention, the patent can be revoked and this "working" is proven by mandatory filings of Form 27, telling status of working of invention, by the assignee, each year. If someone from public does not find such forms with respect to a patent, she may construe it to be non-worked and apply for revokation. Basically, this section stops the trolls from propagating in India. Whether this section was included with sole objective of keeping trolls at bay or it was just about making patents work or about having to maintain only those patents which are being worked so as to reduce load of patent office, is not known. <br /><br />But having said that, the law has not developed in India in this regard. But NPEs like Intellectual Ventures are increasing their footprint in India with aggressive licensing from top universities such as IIT Bombay. It may be another 3-4 years when we will have a NPE knocking at court for infringement lawsuits. Unlike England as pointed out in the paper by Helmers et al, India doesn't enjoy benefits of high litigation costs that discourage NPE, if anything any NPE would be game for losing 20-30 cases,but what may discourage them is the very low damages awarded by Indian courts matters of patent infringement. Rahulnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-33096130473376321322013-04-11T11:15:00.587+01:002013-04-11T11:15:00.587+01:00Dev, thank you for your appreciation and suggestio...Dev, thank you for your appreciation and suggestion. I am already familiar with that paper (a really interesting and well written piece, I should add), as it was one of the sources of inspiration for this post (and the one yet to come). I'll share some thoughts on it and the situation in the EU and UK soon.<br /><br />StefanoStefano Barazzahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03305481038339902614noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-86719955254294114662013-04-11T11:10:21.259+01:002013-04-11T11:10:21.259+01:00The research shows that a lot of small tech compan...The research shows that a lot of small tech companies are targeted by trolls in the US. I think its important that measures are brought in to protect the SME sector against troll activity. There needs to be a mechanism by which a small company can operate in a particular area to develop products and services without threat of patent litigation. A form of compulsory licencing (as previous comments have mentioned) might be a good starting point.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-8193228001758330592013-04-11T10:42:25.390+01:002013-04-11T10:42:25.390+01:00Thanks for this genuinely interesting post. Since ...Thanks for this genuinely interesting post. Since you're considering EU parallels, you may be interested in a paper by my LSE colleague Luke McDonagh (and Christian Helmers) 'Trolls at the High Court', which looks at why PAE suits are much lower before the Patents Court of England and Wales.<br />Available here: http://www.lse.ac.uk/collections/law/wps/WPS2012-13_Mcdonagh.pdf<br /><br />DevUnknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11568631770901841239noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-15803135915829631372013-04-11T09:29:43.396+01:002013-04-11T09:29:43.396+01:00Two thoughts (perhaps somewhat premature, but in t...Two thoughts (perhaps somewhat premature, but in that case at least in eager expectation of your view on the European situation):<br /><br />On a general level: To what extent is PME profitability determined by the fact that many defendants will shy away from defending their case in court in a jurisdiction where legal costs are high whilst the chance of seeing any of that money back is small even in case they win? Are there any possibilities of a "fix" of the system in that respect? <br /><br />More specific to patents:<br />Could the good old concept of the compulsary licence come to the rescue? Would it be possible to establish that, in case of patents of dubious validity in the hands of dubious entities, the "reasonable remuneration" (cf. section 48A(6)(c) UK Patent Act 1977) can reasonably kept so low that being a non-practising entity is no longer profitable?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-68462123776735031482013-04-11T09:17:10.852+01:002013-04-11T09:17:10.852+01:00Ok, but there are plenty of companies who assert p...Ok, but there are plenty of companies who assert patents against others but who aren't interested in the particular field or project. Why are these companies "better" than trolls, what is the difference?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-61043682297722019662013-04-10T23:31:09.345+01:002013-04-10T23:31:09.345+01:00Interesting. I haven't really looked into the ...Interesting. I haven't really looked into the troll issue before, but a few things to consider:<br />1. expand the concept of unjustified threats to extend circumstances where the owner had no legitimate intention to exploit the invention , <br />2. adopt a trade mark 'use it or lose it' approach, <br />3. introduce an 'at least I'm actually exploiting the invention' defence or compulsory licence where the owner does not exploit (coupled with a safeguard against 'sham' licensing arrangements by the owner)<br />Cheers <br />JaniFrench Defectionhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03277563987005004756noreply@blogger.com