November 2, 2016
IP News Patent Assertion entities NPEs looking for success in Asian IP market
The Story
The European Commission recently published a study on Patent Assertion entities within Europe, which was looking at the impact of PAEs in the region and can be considered a complementary study to the FTC’s recent publication looking at PAEs in the US. Interestingly, they conclude that Europe is far from an ideal environment for NPEs, with relatively low costs for discovery and the winner being able to claim fees, there isn’t the same cost-driven attraction towards quick licenses to avoid litigation expenses. Effectively, these reduced fees increase the quality required for filing cases, and if these advantages carry over in the Unitary Patent system then the regime could prove to be extremely attractive for defendants.
Why it’s interesting
At the same time, Siemens recently sold a large portfolio to Marathon Patent Group, containing over 200 telecoms patents and 86 IOT patents. In his statement after the deal, Marathon’s CEO implied that one of the major attractions of the deal was the large number of Asian patents that were included, which suggests that with the Unitary Patent facing a hurdle due to Brexit, and the US introducing measures in an attempt to reduce NPE activity, the Asian markets could prove to be an important lifeline for patent assertion.
The Story
IPWatchdog recently posted an interesting take on large businesses operating in a somewhat crowded IP space. In short, a business may choose to “efficiently infringe”, whereby a major operating company can take a somewhat cold-hearted view of rival IP. The suggestion is that a company could deliberately copy existing IP owned by small, litigation-shy entities such as universities, who may struggle to find the funds for a litigation campaign and might be wary of the subsequent “troll” accusations that may damage their reputation. They suggest that companies can calculate the probability of litigation coming their way, and choose to deliberately infringe under the right combination of risk and return. As a defendant, the thief can use certain tools to their advantage should the IP owner challenge them, with IPR petitions delaying proceedings, legislative measures such as HR9 that can protect shareholders from damages.
Why it’s interesting
The IPWatchdog article definitely makes a compelling case, which shows why many universities make use of PAEs to help protect their IP from such occurrences but leads us to the next story…
The Story
IPFrontline recently posted an article looking at Harvard researcher Yarden Katz’s analysis of IV’s portfolio. Their portfolio is notoriously difficult to mine, as the patents are hidden in over 2000 subsidiaries, which they have not publically declared. They do however, have a published list of some 30,000 of their patents on their website. The study looked at the original assignees of these 30k patents and found that approximately 500 of them came from universities. As for the remaining patents, these are likely from operating companies that have sold patents to IV, as well as a number of self-filed assets, which shows that the patents from universities are just a drop in IV’s ocean.
Why it’s interesting
Universities have been asked to pledge not to sell or license to NPEs or trolls. Some 100 universities have agreed to a specific set of principles regarding academic IP practices. Somewhat controversially some of the universities who have sold patents to IV had signed an agreement in 2007 aimed at preventing university IP from ending up in the hands of PAEs. Their patents were sold to IV in 2010.
PatSnap Webinar
About this webinar
Other IP News Stories
Other Tech News Stories
