Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byDella Powers Modified over 9 years ago
1
Presented to ACC America September 19, 2014 By: Jason M. Schwent Taming the Trolls: Litigation Strategies for Dealing with Patent Assertion Entities
2
PAEs/NPEs/Patent Trolls Various Names Patent Trolls Non-Practicing Entities (NPEs) Patent Assertion Entities (PAEs)
3
Percentage of Patent Troll Cases Filed in U.S. (2010 – 2012) Why are they a problem? 29% 40% 56%
4
PAE Litigation What Do They Want? Who Are They? Litigation Strategies Legislative Responses
5
PAE Litigation What do they want? Always, without exception… MONEY!!! What do they give you? Nonexclusive license Covenant not to sue Not likely to keep $$$ confidential (especially ED Tex) Under current law, no injunction likely
6
PAE Litigation Who are they? Acacia, GeoTag, EMG, Helferich, Lodsys, etc. Usually familiar plaintiff’s counsel Contingency fee relationship Wealth of information Prior suits Prior rulings Prior settlements Prior art Prior work by others
7
PAE Litigation Litigation Strategies If you’re sued…. Fight or Flight? Safety in Numbers Merits Think creatively Third-Parties
8
PAE Litigation Fight or Flight Early settlement Spend is low Early discount Poorly developed info Fight then Flight Maximize leverage – Timing-based leverage – Evidence-based leverage – Patent Office challenges Leverage cost savings
9
PAE Litigation Safety in Numbers Co-defendants Pool resources Prior art searching Experts Ride later wave Preserve individual defenses
10
PAE Litigation Merits Infringement Do you practice it? Is it important? Is part of it done outside US? Is it already licensed? Invalidity Is the patent valid? Prior art searching Patent Office re-review – Possible stay of litigation
11
PAE Litigation Patent Office Challenges Ex parte reexamination Challenger starts—no further role Post-grant review w/in 9 mos. of issuance Inter partes review at least 9 mos. post-issuance Covered business method patent review
12
PAE Litigation Think creatively Early motions Narrow scope of case Attack patent assets – on multiple fronts Any dirt on PAE?
13
PAE Litigation Third Parties Indemnification Vendor/Supplier Possible stay? License Broker Interested Parties Bounties
14
PAE Litigation Washington perception of the size and scope of the problem Small businesses and inventors being harmed Innocent end users and customers – Coffee shop WiFi – Scanners – Local retailers Innovation and employment PAE litigation increase Prior fixes weren’t enough State Attorney General actions
15
PAE Litigation Patent reform legislation? Current Status = Dead Compromise could not be found What was the problem?
16
PAE Litigation Two problems: Defining wrong doers Unintended consequences
17
PAE Litigation Who to target? Target entities who don’t make, sell, or develop anything Patent holding companies Trusts Universities Target entities whose only income is from patent enforcement Patent holding companies/trusts Universities Small Inventors
18
PAE Litigation Unintended consequences… Fee shifting? Plaintiff litigation bonds? Punishing meritless arguments? Early claim construction/discovery stay? Administrative alternatives?
19
PAE Litigation So now what? Congress wants to try again Court based reform Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc. Highmark, Inc. v. Allcare Health Management System, Inc.
20
Questions
21
Contact Information jschwent@thompsoncoburn.com Author of “The Patent Billy Goat” blog—a guide to learning about and dealing with patent assertion entities and their tactics (314) 552-6291
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.