Showing posts with label patent trolls. Show all posts
Showing posts with label patent trolls. Show all posts

Wednesday, March 6, 2019

How the patent office's lax standards gave Elizabeth Holmes the BS patents she needed to defraud investors and patients; Boing Boing, March 4, 2019

Cory Doctorow, Boing Boing; How the patent office's lax standards gave Elizabeth Holmes the BS patents she needed to defraud investors and patients

"Patents are only supposed to be issued for devices with "utility" -- that is, they have to actually work before you can get a patent for them. But it's been decades since the USPTO has paid meningful [sic] attention to this criterion when evaluating applications, handing out patents for imaginary "inventions" to con artists, delusional hucksters, and other "inventors" who are willing to pay the filing fees that keep the lights on at the Patent Office. And since most people only have a vague idea of the rigor used in patent examination, these patents for design fiction can be used as impressive "proof" when crooks set out to deceive their marks.

(Another real problem with these fake patents: allowing con-artists to patent "inventions" that they have no idea how to make means that when someone really does invent that gadget, the con-man can use their bogus patent to threaten and extort real inventors)."

Saturday, February 16, 2019

Entrepreneurs Tell USPTO Director Iancu: Patent Trolls Aren’t Just “Monster Stories”; Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), February 14, 2019

Joe Mullin, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF); Entrepreneurs Tell USPTO Director Iancu: Patent Trolls Aren’t Just “Monster Stories”

"Unfortunately, the new director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is in a serious state of denial about patent trolls and the hurt they cause to technologists everywhere. Today a number of small business owners and start-up founders have submitted a letter [PDF] to USPTO Director Andre Iancu telling him that patent trolls remain a real threat to U.S. businesses. Signatories range from mid-sized companies like Foursquare and Life360 to one-person software enterprises like Ken Cooper's. The letter explains the harm, cost, and stress that patent trolls cause businesses."

Sunday, June 24, 2018

Nathan Myhrvold: ‘Nasa doesn’t want to admit it’s wrong about asteroids’; The Observer via The Guardian, June 24, 2018

Zoe Corbyn, The Observer via The Guardian; Nathan Myhrvold: ‘Nasa doesn’t want to admit it’s wrong about asteroids’

"In 2000, you left Microsoft and set up Intellectual Ventures, which primarily buys and licenses patents. The business is often vilified as one of the world’s biggest “patent trolls”. Why do you think people find it so loathsome? 

I fundamentally think what we do is good. It is hard for me to get too worked up about figuring out why it is bad. Any patent holder who enforces their rights gets called a patent troll. Silicon Valley feels very threatened by anything that could challenge its authority. If you are one of the big companies, like Google or Apple, almost no one can challenge you in the market that you’re in. But if somebody has a patent, they can ask for a bunch of money. The more you can get a return from an invention, the better off the world will be. It will lead to more inventions being funded and more inventing...

President Trump is going after China’s intellectual property theft. Given your experience, can he succeed in curbing it? 

The theft of intellectual property by Chinese companies is a very serious issue. It’s not just private companies in China or little companies. A large amount of it is state-owned enterprise. So, it really is the Chinese government doing it. Exactly how to solve that issue, I don’t know. You need the Chinese government to be very serious about it, but so far they haven’t been. In my experience in business, you mostly do better with negotiating in quiet diplomacy, not with brinksmanship. But I’ve never built luxury hotels and golf courses. Maybe it is different there."

Tuesday, April 24, 2018

Supreme Court Upholds Procedure That’s Said to Combat ‘Patent Trolls’; The New York Times, April 24, 2018

Adam Liptak, The New York Times; Supreme Court Upholds Procedure That’s Said to Combat ‘Patent Trolls’

"The Supreme Court on Tuesday upheld the constitutionality of a procedure that makes it easier to challenge questionable patents.

The procedure, created by Congress in 2011, resembles a trial in federal court, but is conducted by an executive-branch agency. Supporters say it helps combat “patent trolls,” or companies that obtain patents not to use them but to demand royalties and sue for damages.

Opponents say the procedure violates the Constitution by usurping the role of the federal courts, violating the separation of powers and denying patent holders the right to a jury trial.

By a 7-to-2 vote, the Supreme Court ruled that the procedure was a permissible way for the agency that administers patents to fix its mistakes."

Wednesday, April 11, 2018

More Patent Trolls Are Targeting Startups. Here's What You Can Do.; Entrepreneur, April 10, 2018

Nathaniel Borenstein, Entrepreneur; More Patent Trolls Are Targeting Startups. Here's What You Can Do.

"Startups aren't typically founded by lawyers, so patent law isn't usually a front line issue for them. But I've come to realize that patent protection is at best No. 11 on the top 10 list of things for startups to focus on -- something they generally understand is important, but not quite important enough. Part of that is because the headlines focus on big lawsuits lobbed at big companies, which creates a false sense of security. As an inventor and a computer scientist with 25-plus years of practical experience, I'd like to think I've navigated the murky, complicated world of patents and come out on the other side wiser and more informed. And, as such, there is something I want entrepreneurs, inventors and early-stage businesses to know. Yes, you are a potential target for patent trolls, and yes, there is something you can do about it. Today."

Wednesday, March 7, 2018

Why the roots of patent trolling may be in the patent office; Ars Technica, March 5, 2018

Timothy B. Lee, Ars Technica; Why the roots of patent trolling may be in the patent office

"In recent years, American companies have faced a growing threat from patent assertion entities derisively called "patent trolls." These often shadowy firms make money by threatening patent lawsuits rather than creating useful products. A recent study suggests that the roots of the patent trolling problem may lie with the US Patent and Trademark office—specifically with patent examiners who fail to thoroughly vet patent applications before approving them...
The study reinforces earlier research suggesting that the country's problems with low-quality patents and rampant patent litigation is driven by inadequate scrutiny of patents by patent examiners. It suggests that giving patent examiners better training and more time to scrutinize each patent could improve patent quality and bring down frivolous patent litigation over time."

Friday, February 23, 2018

Patent Trolls Target Small Businesses With Lawsuit Threats. Here's How One Startup Fought Back; Inc., February 22, 2018

Minda Zetlin, Inc.; Patent Trolls Target Small Businesses With Lawsuit Threats. Here's How One Startup Fought Back

"Why are they targeting small businesses?

For years, these entities made their money by suing or threatening to sue large corporations with deep pockets. This worked well because they could take advantage of the rule that companies can be sued anywhere they do business, and large companies tend to do business in every state. Patent trolls found a few federal court districts where they had greater odds of winning. From their point of view, life was good.

But in May 2017, the Supreme Court issued a ruling that companies could only be sued for patent infringement in the state where they reside. That made collecting much harder for patent assertion entities. Many turned their attention to small companies and startups for which the cost of defending a patent case could pose an existential threat. They began sending letters containing a simple proposition: Pay us a (relatively reasonable) one-time fee and we'll sell you a permanent license and drop our planned lawsuit."

Wednesday, August 9, 2017

Podcast patent ruled invalid by court; BBC, August 8, 2017

BBC; Podcast patent ruled invalid by court

"A company that charged others for uploading video and audio content on to their own websites has had its podcast patent invalidated by a US court.
The Electronic Frontiers Foundation (EFF) argued that Personal Audio LCC had "not invented anything new" when it acquired the patent in 2012.
Building up patent libraries to aggressively pursue others for payments while making few if any products of one's own is sometimes referred to as "patent trolling"."

Saturday, July 29, 2017

A Boston firm labeled a ‘patent troll’ by some says it is actually performing a service; Boston Globe, July 29, 2017

Andy Rosen, Boston Globe; A Boston firm labeled a ‘patent troll’ by some says it is actually performing a service

"Whether known by the pejorative “patent troll” or the more plaintiff-friendly “patent assertion entity,” such repeat claimants generally keep a low profile.

Not Blackbird. Verlander and her staff display their pictures, bios, and links to social media on a company website that says Blackbird helps inventors who are outmatched by big companies with little incentive to respond to claims not backed by expensive lawyers.

Verlander sees herself as doing a service to combat rhetoric by what she calls the “infringer lobby,” which seeks to conflate all patent assertion work with the more dubious pursuits of unscrupulous trolls. There are bad actors, she said, on all sides.

“If in the end you can’t reward someone for their invention regardless of whether they make a product, then you’re discouraging people from inventing, and that’s bad,” Verlander said."

Tuesday, July 25, 2017

Will East Texas be able to keep patent cases despite the Supreme Court?; Ars Technica, July 20, 2017

Joe Mullin, Ars Technica; Will East Texas be able to keep patent cases despite the Supreme Court?

"The following month, though, it looked like Cray had been thrown a lifeline by the US Supreme Court, which voted 8-0 to tighten up patent venue rules in a case called TC Heartland v. Kraft FoodsThe high court held that companies can only be sued for patent infringement in the state in which they are incorporated, or where the defendant company has a "regular and established place of business."
Yet under the new rules, Gilstrap still wouldn't let Cray out of the district. Cray's only tie to the district was a single salesperson, who worked out of his home in the Eastern District. In the judge's view, though, that was enough to find that Cray had "regular and established" business in the Eastern District and would have to face trial.
Gilstrap's controversial interpretation of the TC Heartland decision has been scorned by lawmakers who have supported patent reform efforts. In a hearing about the US patent system last week, Rep. Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) said Gilstrap's move "rejects the Supreme Court's unanimous decision" and was "reprehensible.""

Friday, July 14, 2017

A patent lawyer switches teams; Crain's Chicago Business, July 8, 2017

Claire Bushey, Crain's Chicago Business; A patent lawyer switches teams

"Unlike a ​ traditional law firm, Blackbird is structured as a limited liability company, not a partnership, and it has no clients. Instead, it acquires patents from inventors or small businesses. Blackbird then sues companies for patent infringement on its own behalf, and it shares an unspecified percentage of any settlement or judgment with the original patent owner.

Blackbird filed 107 lawsuits between September 2014 and May, including against Amazon, Fitbit, Netflix and kCura, a Chicago company that makes software used by law firms. It has settled with Amazon. The other three cases are ongoing.

Three months ago it sued San Francisco-based Cloudflare, and in May the website infrastructure company blasted Blackbird as "a dangerous new breed of patent troll" and launched a scorched-earth campaign against the 11-person business. Cloudflare, valued at $3.2 billion and with a seven-employee Champaign office, offered to the public a total of $50,000 for evidence that would invalidate any of 35 patents Blackbird holds. It also lodged ethics complaints with legal disciplinary bodies in Illinois and Massachusetts, and it was successful in prompting Illinois Rep. Keith Wheeler (R-Oswego) to introduce a bill that would outlaw Blackbird's business model...

A lawyer at Intel coined the epithet "patent troll" in 2001 to refer to Anthony Brown, a one-time Jenner & Block partner turned serial patent lawsuit filer, and his Chicago lawyer, the late Ray Niro. A troll asserts a patent of dubious quality, hoping the company will settle the infringement lawsuit quickly for maybe $50,000 to avoid spending millions on litigation. Detractors often slap the label on patent holders who do not manufacture a product, so-called nonpracticing entities."

Sunday, July 9, 2017

Texas Judge Sets Patent Venue Test for a Post-TC Heartland World; Inside Counsel, July 6, 2017

Scott Graham, Inside Counsel; Texas Judge Sets Patent Venue Test for a Post-TC Heartland World

"The first big post-TC Heartland shoe has dropped on the patent world.

U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap of the Eastern District of Texas set down ground rules last week for maintaining cases in the district following the Supreme Court's decision in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods resetting venue rules.

Gilstrap laid out four factors he will consider when deciding whether a company has a “regular and established place of business” that gives rise to venue. While a fixed physical presence such as a store or office will tend to be persuasive, “that is not a prerequisite to proper venue,” Gilstrap wrote. His rules appear to open the door for internet companies to continue being sued in the Eastern District in some circumstances."

Monday, June 5, 2017

The U.S. Supreme Court Is Reining in Patent Trolls, Which Is a Win for Innovation; Harvard Business Review, June 2, 2017

Larry Downes, Harvard Business Review; The U.S. Supreme Court Is Reining in Patent Trolls, Which Is a Win for Innovation

"In the last week, the U.S. Supreme Court issued two important rulings limiting patent rights. The decisions, which were both unanimous, significantly scaled back the ability of patent holders to slow innovation by competitors, tipping scales that many legal scholars believe have become badly imbalanced."

Thursday, May 25, 2017

Patent decision bad for East Texas hospitality; Houston Chronicle, May 25, 2017

Chris Tomlinson, Houston Chronicle; 

Patent decision bad for East Texas hospitality


"Business travelers are the mainstay of the hospitality business and the U.S. Supreme Court just dealt a blow to East Texas hoteliers and restaurateurs.

The number of out-of-town attorneys and paralegals trekking to Tyler and Marshall will likely plummet now that the court has limited where patent trolls can use the judiciary to extort money from major corporations...

The patent-holders don't choose East Texas because they live there, nor are the defendant companies based in East Texas. The plaintiffs choose the district because the judges move through the cases quickly and the juries consistently rule against big companies.

The plaintiffs get away with it because the products with the intellectual property in question are sold in the district. So every month, dozens of attorneys and paralegals make the trip to East Texas to argue the cases they couldn't settle out of court.

But no more. Maybe."

Wednesday, May 24, 2017

The Supreme Court’s big ruling on ‘patent trolls’ will rock businesses everywhere; Washington Post, May 23, 2017

Brian Fung, Washington Post; The Supreme Court’s big ruling on ‘patent trolls’ will rock businesses everywhere

"So what does the Supreme Court's ruling mean for this system?

It's a big deal, particularly for smaller companies. The court voted unanimously to say that patent lawsuits should be tried where the defending company is based, rather than in a court of the plaintiff's choosing.
Legal analysts say this decision could shift a huge number of cases away from “plaintiff-friendly” districts and toward more “neutral” venues where a defending company stands a better chance of fending off a suit.
“From here out,” according to Walter Olson, a senior fellow at the libertarian Cato Institute, “defendants can still be sued in a district such as E.D. Tex. if they have a regular and established place of business in it, but the decision is likely to shrink what I called in my January preview a ‘jackpot patent litigation sector.’ ”"

Supreme Court Ruling Could Hinder ‘Patent Trolls’; New York Times, May 22, 2017

Adam Liptak, New York Times; 

Supreme Court Ruling Could Hinder ‘Patent Trolls’


"More than 40 percent of patent lawsuits, for instance, are filed in a federal court in East Texas.

In recent years, a single judge based in Marshall, Tex., oversaw about a quarter of all patent cases nationwide, more than the number handled by all federal judges in California, Florida and New York combined.

Monday’s decision was a victory for big technology companies and other patent holders, which have complained about what they called forum shopping in patent cases. Other companies have argued that it makes sense to let cases be considered by courts that have developed expertise in patent matters."

Monday, May 22, 2017

Justices Make It Easier for Companies to Defend Patent Cases; Associated Press via New York Times, May 22, 2017

Associated Press via New York Times; 

Justices Make It Easier for Companies to Defend Patent Cases


"The Supreme Court on Monday made it easier for companies to defend themselves against patent infringement lawsuits in a ruling that places strict limits on where such cases can be filed.

The justices ruled unanimously that patent owners must bring lawsuits only in states where the targeted company is incorporated. The issue is important to many companies that complain about patent owners "shopping" for favorable courts in other parts of the country to file lawsuits."

Tuesday, March 28, 2017

Supreme Court Considers Why Patent Trolls Love Texas; New York Times, March 27, 2017

Adam Liptak, New York Times; 

Supreme Court Considers Why Patent Trolls Love Texas


"More than 40 percent of patent lawsuits are filed in a federal court in East Texas with a reputation for friendliness to plaintiffs. That curious fact was the backdrop for a Supreme Court argument on Monday over whether the court should halt what many big technology companies say is pernicious forum shopping in patent cases.

In recent years, a single judge based in Marshall, Tex., oversaw about a quarter of all patent cases nationwide, more than the number handled by all federal judges in California, Florida and New York combined.

The Texas court is a favorite venue of patent trolls, or companies that buy patents not to use them but to demand royalties and sue for damages." 

Sunday, January 1, 2017

The 11 Stupidest Patents of 2016; Motherboard, 1/1/17

Daniel Oberhaus, Motherboard; 

The 11 Stupidest Patents of 2016:

[Kip Currier: Happy 2017! 1st post of the new year.]

"Last year, the US Patent and Trademark Office saw nearly 630,000 patent applications come through its doors, roughly half of which were granted a patent. Some of these patents were pretty incredible, such as Amazon’s patent for 3D printing products on demand or this “solar powered space weapon.” Unfortunately, for every patent filed for a game changing technology, several others are filed for utterly mundane inventions whose sole purpose is to be used as ‘Exhibit A’ in patent infringement lawsuits...

While Silicon Valley keeps waging its war against the patent trolls that are costing some companies millions of dollars a year, the Electronic Frontier Foundation has taken a more humorous approach to the problem. In 2014, the EFF created its ‘Stupid Patent of the Month,’ a prestigious monthly award bestowed upon patent trolls who have the unique privilege of inventing really dumb stuff. While it seemed like it was going to be difficult to top last year’s bevy of stupid ideas, 2016 has not been a disappointment.
So without further ado, here are the dumbest inventions of 2016..."

Wednesday, December 21, 2016

Patent Bar Braces for Game-Changing Supreme Court Case; Inside Counsel, 12/19/16

Scott Graham, Inside Counsel; Patent Bar Braces for Game-Changing Supreme Court Case:
"The U.S. Supreme Court has heard more than 30 patent cases over the last 10 years. A case the high court accepted for review Wednesday could have more impact than any of them since a 2006 decision scaling back injunctions, in the eye of at least one experienced patent litigator.
TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods Group Brands "could be the biggest change since the eBay case," said Haynes and Boone partner Kenneth Parker. "The biggest case of the decade."...
Patent litigators say Eastern Texas has become the venue of choice for a number of reasons: Juries are willing to award more damages, cases are brought to trial quickly, the trials themselves are kept shorter, summary judgment is harder to obtain, and Section 101 patent eligibility motions, which can quickly shut down a suit in other courts, are generally not decided early in the litigation."