Patent Trolls Undermine Open Access; Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), 10/28/16

Elliot Harmon, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF); Patent Trolls Undermine Open Access:

"...[E]ven as university research becomes accessible to a wider public, some of that same research is falling into the hands of patent trolls, companies that serve no purpose but to amass patents and sue innovators who independently created similar inventions. When universities file patents on inventions that arise from scientific research and then sell those patents to trolls, it puts a strain on innovation. That’s why EFF recently launched Reclaim Invention, a campaign to encourage universities to adopt policies not to sell or license patents to trolls...

As the open access movement continues to grow and mature, we hope to see open access allies on campus begin to take on their institutions’ patenting policies. University patenting and licensing policies directly affect how researchers’ outputs will be used in the field. The same arguments that have given way to the explosion of open access publishing also apply to patents—just as researchers shouldn’t trust their work with publishers that don’t have the public’s interest at heart, their institutions shouldn’t sell patents to trolls out for nothing but a quick buck. Instead, they should partner with companies that will bring their inventions to the public.

After all, the public paid for it."

The government and the courts are finally getting fed up with patent trolls — and stupid patents; Los Angeles Times, 10/11/16

Michael Hiltzik, Los Angeles Times; The government and the courts are finally getting fed up with patent trolls — and stupid patents:

"Almost nobody disputes that America’s patent system is a mess, or that it’s been that way for an unconscionably long time.

Overworked and misguided patent examiners issue patents for manifestly undeserving claims. An entire industry of patent trolls has sprung up to assemble patent rights and exploit them, not to make products or develop services, but to harass other businesses into paying them off to avoid costlier litigation.

Efforts to reform patenting tend to run into resistance from big businesses, such as the pharmaceutical industry, that long ago figured out how to game the process and are disinclined to give up their advantage. As a result, a system that was written into the U.S. Constitution to encourage invention and innovation has been turned into a “dead weight … on the nation’s economy.”"

Professor analyzing decades of data to determine patent value; University of Kansas, 8/30/16

University of Kansas; Professor analyzing decades of data to determine patent value:

"For more than two centuries, patents have been considered a key governmental policy tool for economic innovation. And for just as long numerous assumptions have been made about what they mean to an innovation’s value, where the most important ones are litigated and numerous other questions. A University of Kansas law professor is part of a project that is providing definitive answers to these and other patent questions for policy makers through a unique, big-data approach.

Andrew Torrance, the Earl B. Schurtz Research Professor at the University of Kansas School of Law, and colleagues have developed an approach to analyze mountains of detailed U.S. patent data from 1976 to the present day. One application of their research, commissioned by Canada's Ministry of Innovation, has been a comprehensive analysis of how patents having either Canadian inventors or owners compare with those without such connections. One of their most striking findings is that patents listing at least one Canadian inventor are more than 15 percent more valuable, on average, than other patents."

Fixing why USPTO issues low-quality patents should be oversight hearing's focus; The Hill, 9/13/16

Julie Samuels, The Hill; Fixing why USPTO issues low-quality patents should be oversight hearing's focus:

"Today, the House Judiciary Committee is holding a Patent Office oversight hearing. It promises to include a headline-grabbing discussion of a recently released report showing abuses of the Patent Office’s telework program. It would be a serious missed opportunity if that conversation distracts the Committee from talking about what really matters: why the Patent Office issues low-quality patents and what can be done to fix it.

The Patent Office’s primary job is, not surprisingly to administer the patent system. This is not a small job—the Office has a staff of nearly 10,000 people and it grants approximately 350,000 patents a year. Each of these represents a 20-year monopoly, so it is crucial that the patents are of the highest quality. If they’re not, they can be quite dangerous, especially if they end up in the hands of a patent troll.

In fact, the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) recently released a report finding some things we already knew, namely, that low-quality patents lead to more patent litigation and that the less time patent examiners are able to dedicate to a patent application, the more likely they are to turn that application into a patent."

Tell Your University: Don't Sell Patents to Trolls; Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), 8/17/16

Elliot Harmon, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF); Tell Your University: Don't Sell Patents to Trolls:

"When universities invent, those inventions should benefit everyone. Unfortunately, they sometimes end up in the hands of patent trolls—companies that serve no purpose but to amass patents and demand money from others. When a university sells patents to trolls, it undermines the university’s purpose as a driver of innovation. Those patents become landmines that make innovation more difficult.

A few weeks ago, we wrote about the problem of universities selling or licensing patents to trolls. We said that the only way that universities will change their patenting and technology transfer policies is if students, professors, and other members of the university community start demanding it.

It’s time to start making those demands.

We’re launching Reclaim Invention, a new initiative to urge universities to rethink how they use patents. If you think that universities should keep their inventions away from the hands of patent trolls, then use our form to tell them.

EFF is proud to partner with Creative Commons, Engine, Fight for the Future, Knowledge Ecology International, and Public Knowledge on this initiative.

A Simple Promise to Defend Innovation

Central to our initiative is the Public Interest Patent Pledge (PIPP), a pledge we hope to see university leadership sign. The pledge says that before a university sells or licenses a patent, it will first check to make sure that the potential buyer or licensee doesn’t match the profile of a patent troll"

A World Without Patents; Forbes, 5/12/16

David Pridham, Forbes; A World Without Patents:

"On the surface, Cuozzo Speed Technologies v. Lee is about whether the Patent Office (PTO) can use a different standard in hearing challenges to a patent’s validity after it’s been granted than the standard used by the federal courts. It’s also about whether the taking of a legal property right (a patent) ought to happen via an administrative hearing, without judicial review.

During oral arguments, Chief Justice John Roberts seemed shocked by the PTO’s system for challenging patents, known as Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs), calling it a “bizarre way … to decide a legal question” and a “very extraordinary animal in legal culture to have two different proceedings addressing the same question that lead to different results.” He was referring to the fact that a patent upheld as valid and infringed by the federal courts can then be taken by the infringing defendant to the PTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and declared invalid!...

Even if you stipulate that there are bad patents that shouldn’t have been issued, is it really believable that 90% of all patents granted are invalid — despite being issued only after careful review by PTO examiners in a process that takes over two years and results in the rejection of half of all patent applications?

If we really believe that 90% of Patent Office output is garbage, then we should just shut the agency down and save everyone all the trouble.

There would be consequences, of course. Without patents and the competitive protections they afford, individuals and companies will not invest the money it takes to develop new cures for disease or create new technological wonders. That’s because they know others will simply copy their inventions with impunity and then sell them at a much lower cost, since it didn’t cost them a dime to develop these in the first place. This is a terrific way to drive the innovators out of any industry."

Chief Justice Calls U.S. Patent Challenge Process Bizarre; Reuters via New York Times, 4/2/5/16

Reuters via New York Times; Chief Justice Calls U.S. Patent Challenge Process Bizarre:

"U.S. Chief Justice John Roberts on Monday described as bizarre the legal process used by companies to challenge competitors' patents as the Supreme Court heard a case involving a vehicle speedometer that alerts drivers if they are driving too quickly.

The eight justices heard an appeal filed by Cuozzo Speed Technologies LLC, whose speedometer patent was invalidated in a U.S. Patent and Trademark Office review board procedure after being challenged by GPS device maker Garmin Ltd in 2012.

The issue before the justices during a one-hour argument in the case was whether the U.S. government has made it too easy for companies to pursue challenges to the patents of other companies...

Roberts was the most outspoken critic among the eight justices of the current system in which companies can adopt a dual-track strategy by challenging patents simultaneously in federal court and through the agency review board."

‘Deadpool’ Technology Lands in Patent Fight; New York Times, 2/24/16

Jim Kerstetter, New York Times; ‘Deadpool’ Technology Lands in Patent Fight:

"Over the years, big tech companies have collected stock piles of patents and copyrights, both to protect their assets and sue other companies. Oracle sued Google. Apple sued Samsung. So-called patent trolls — companies that own patents, but don’t actually build products based on them — have sued scores of little and big companies.

Industry complaints that lawsuits were sucking innovation out of tech — and scaring people away from creating start-ups — led to calls in Washington for patent reform. But so far those efforts have gone nowhere.

Rearden has asked a judge to award it financial damages and block the distribution of movies and other entertainment that it claims have been made using infringing Mova patents and trademarks."

Hacking the Patent System: Improved, Expanded Guide to Patent Licensing Alternatives; Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF), 1/26/16

Elliott Harmon, Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF); Hacking the Patent System: Improved, Expanded Guide to Patent Licensing Alternatives:

"We're pleased to announce the 2016 edition of Hacking the Patent System, a guide to alternative patent licensing produced by the Juelsgaard Intellectual Property & Innovation Clinic at Stanford Law School in partnership with EFF and Engine. First published in 2014, the guide provides a high-level overview of several tools that inventors and innovators could use to avert unnecessary and costly patent litigation (or at least to avoid trollish behavior themselves).

The tools we cover fall roughly into three categories: defensive patent aggregators, defensive patent pledges, and insurance. Generally speaking, defensive aggregators use the pooled resources of member companies to purchase patents that may otherwise have been purchased by trolls."

Patent Litigation Up in 2015, Despite Efforts to Rein it In; Wall Street Journal, 1/4/16

Ashby Jones, Wall Street Journal; Patent Litigation Up in 2015, Despite Efforts to Rein it In:

"According to the report, released Monday by RPX Corp., NPEs filed over 3,600 patent cases in 2015. NPEs, also referred to derisively by some as “patent trolls,” buy up patents and seek to make money from them through licensing and litigation.

NPEs filed 3,604 cases last year, a sharp increase over 2014, in which NPEs filed 2,891. The number was down slightly from 2013, in which NPEs filed 3,733 lawsuits.

The authors of the study acknowledge that the uptick is somewhat counterintuitive.

In recent years, Congress, the Supreme Court, and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office have all taken steps to curb litigation based on patents, especially those relating to computer software. Critics argue that many of these patents should not have been awarded in the first place.

The 2011 America Invents Act — Congress’s first overhaul of the patent laws in decades — established a new tribunal, called the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

The PTAB allows a company embroiled in a lawsuit to skip the question of whether it infringed a patent and challenge whether the patent should have been issued in the first place."

The 4 worst patents of 2015; Washington Post, 12/14/15

Larry Downes, Washington Post; The 4 worst patents of 2015:

"This was another depressing year for patent law, which long ago lost sight of its constitutional moorings as a balanced and limited source of incentives for innovators. Though Congress, the courts and the Patent and Trademark Office each tried in their own way to rein in a system widely-regarded as out of control, in the end nobody made much progress...

The polite name for such companies is “non-practicing entities,” but most of us know them as patent trolls. And according to the Consumer Technology Association, these parasites have drained over $150 billion from the U.S. economy since 2013, at a pace that is accelerating.

Beyond the trolls, there’s a more fundamental problem. The mismatch between expanding patent coverage and the quickening pace of disruptive change has become one of the greatest sources of danger to the innovation economy.

That’s especially true of patents granted for basic software and abstract business methods — categories that have only recently been recognized in the first place."

Judge: Company must pay $684k for suing Life360 in “exceptionally weak” patent case; ArsTechnica.com, 12/2/15

Joe Mullin, ArsTechnica.com; Judge: Company must pay $684k for suing Life360 in “exceptionally weak” patent case:

"Family networking service Life360 won a patent trial earlier this year against a Florida company called Advanced Ground Information Systems (AGIS) that sued it for patent infringement. Now it has won a significant chunk of its legal fees for fighting the case.

Yesterday, US District Judge Donald Middlebrooks ordered AGIS to pay Life360 the sum of $684,190.25. That amount represents the legal fees paid from November 21, 2014, when Middlebrooks issued a claim construction order, through the end of the trial on March 13, 2015."