This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
A decade ago, patenttrolls were all the rage in the patent world. Whether in speeches, conferences, or articles, no subject engendered more IP conversation. If there was a rock-star matter in the patent world, it was the debate over trolls. PatentTrolls, ?nd
Over to Konstantin for the story and his take on the developments: "Some may associate businesses whose primary aim is to assert patents in litigation to obtain license revenue with the Eastern District of Texas or the Unwired Planet decision in the UK, and not think about cases further afield from Marshall, Texas or London.
A North Carolina federal judge shot down a constitutional challenge Thursday to a state law that criminalizes patentlicensing demand letters sent in bad faith, rejecting a licensing company's arguments that the law violates the rights to free speech and equal protection.
The first kind, academic institutions, acquire patents to protect the research work of their faculty and researchers while licensing others to use the results of the research produced without commodifying the patent. They do not practice, develop, manufacture, or otherwise commercialize the patent.
E-commerce software brand Shopify doubled-down on its legal attack on the business practices of IP Edge, urging a San Antonio federal judge to reject a Waco magistrate judge's holding that an allegedly affiliated licensing company does not have to participate in what Shopify's lawyers have called a campaign to "expose patenttrolls."
Google has invested in patenting and licensing their engineers’ inventions ( 42,000 home-grown patents ), and has sold patents to smaller companies to help strengthen their portfolios. Google also helped discover the License on Transfer Network. Concern with the US patent system. Source: RPX.
The T-word, patent “troll,” has been used widely over the past 20 years to negatively predispose potential licensees, lawmakers, the courts, as well Continue reading Words matter.
For example, Google was a key player in 2013 in starting the Open Patent Non-Assertion Pledge (to not sue on open-source software). Google was also instrumental in the beginnings of the License On Transfer network (which helps members who have been sued by “patenttrolls”).
Introduction Patenttrolls are entities that do not actively develop their inventions but instead acquire patent rights for obvious inventions to prevent others from working on them or to collect licensing fees. In a way, patenttrolls serve a purpose, much like lawyers.
House of Representatives members on Thursday introduced for the third time a bill that aims to restrict the ability of patentlicensing companies to file suits at the U.S. International Trade Commission, saying the legislation would help protect American businesses.
Emily Xiang is an IPilogue Writer, a Senior Fellow with the IP Innovation Clinic, and a 3L JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School. Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, where she teaches contracts, international IP, patents, copyright, and courses on Biblical Law. Professor Ruth L. Okediji is the Jeremiah Smith Jr.
However, since the plaintiff in this matter had not yet practiced its invention and had a history of procuring patents for their licensing program, the plaintiff’s conduct in this case raised concerns about whether injunctive relief should be denied on equitable grounds because the plaintiff may be characterized as a “patenttroll.”
This is the latest in the series titled “NPE Showcase,” where we discuss high-volume non-practicing entities (or as some call them, “patenttrolls”). The District of Delaware has long been a favorite venue for patenttrolls across the country. Maxevar/IP Edge called the shots.
A patent is a form of Intellectual Property (IP) granted to the owners of an invention or innovation, giving them the right to control how others could use or exploit their invention or innovation. Open-source patents combine the concept of traditional patents and open-source licensing.
Cats are well acquainted with the art of trolling already… Did you know that there is now an emoji for all of your IP needs? Mostert co-submitted an application for a troll emoji ( ) to the Unicode Consortium in early 2020. It will be interesting to see whether and, if so, how, IP professionals will make use of the emoji.
But any company preparing to sell within the next five years should consider the more common IP issues that arise during the legal due diligence process. IP Ownership Nearly all purchase agreements require the seller to warrant that it owns or licenses the intellectual property necessary for operation of the business.
AI and IP Law: Podcast with Yuri Eliezer by Yuri L. Eliezer AI and Intellectual Property Law An Insightful Discussion with Yuri Eliezer The intersection of Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Intellectual Property (IP) Law is becoming increasingly significant in the dynamic landscape of technology and innovation.
This is the latest in the series titled “NPE Showcase,” where we discuss high-volume non-practicing entities (or as some call them, “patenttrolls”). This installment will focus on a company named Sockeye Licensing TX, LLC. NPEs are also known to limit their license when suing software companies.
This is the latest in the series titled “NPE Showcase,” where we discuss high-volume non-practicing entities (or as some call them, “patenttrolls”). This installment will focus on a company named Triumph IP. Triumph IP claims to own a patent on technology that is vital to the 802.11
VirnetX is a classic example of an NPE that does not qualify as a “patenttroll.” Patenttrolls leverage the litigation system to negotiate settlements for less than the cost of defending against a lawsuit. VirnetX, on the other hand, licenses its patents for eight and sometimes nine figures.
299 limits joinder in patent cases to defendants who infringe using “the same accused product or process.” ” Congress enacted this requirement to restrict patenttrolls who were filing lawsuits against defendants who had nothing in common but the allegation that they were infringing the same patent.
can argue before jurors in a trial over Ericsson's patentlicensing terms, including barring descriptions of a party as "evil" or a "patenttroll" and banning references of anyone's sexual orientation or religious beliefs. Eastern District of Texas Judge Rodney Gilstrap is limiting what Ericsson Inc. and Apple Inc.
House of Representatives members reintroduced a bill Tuesday that aims to restrict the ability of patentlicensing companies to file suits at the U.S. International Trade Commission, saying the legislation would help protect American companies.
Businesses with forward-thinking intellectual property strategies are also using IP to gain competitive advantages and drive new revenue opportunities. A holistic IP strategy can not only protect your business from an infringement lawsuit but allow you to leverage your IP assets for growth. ELEMENT 1 1. ELEMENT 3 3.
Patent litigation declined significantly in the first quarter of 2023 over the same period in 2022, despite increases in issued patents, the difficulty of Continue reading
However, the use of mechanisms that facilitate reaching out-of-court agreements in matters of intellectual and industrial property (IP) remains limited. But what specific benefits can this requirement offer in IP disputes? Avoiding the judicialization of conflicts is the primary goal of the lawyer.
by jcgoforth is licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0 In the wake of the collapse of the Internet bubble circa 2000, a public outcry about patenttrolls caught the attention of Congress and the federal courts. A wild mix of reforms of the patent system resulted between about 2005 and 2015. "Burst Bubble."
Patents , as a vital form of intellectual property (IP), safeguard these innovations, providing inventors and businesses exclusive rights to their inventions while promoting the dissemination of knowledge. In 2024, several key developments are shaping the way patents are filed, enforced, and litigated.
An survey of more than 1,000 Americans from all walks of life has made clearer the extent to which people are confused about the purpose Continue reading.
Introduction: Robert Burrell IP Australia exerts extraordinary control over legislative agenda; if you can persuade IP Au. IP Australia also regulates patent & TM attorneys through professional standards board domination. Patenttroll narrative was effective. Money brings attention.
Recent Headlines in the IP World: Ludwig Burger: BioNTech Says It Won’t Challenge Vaccine Copying in Africa (Source: CTV News). Stephen Warwick: Apple and Ericsson’s Massive Patent Dispute is Going to Trial Next Year (Source: iMore). Wayne Winegarden: The ITC Is Subsidizing PatentTrolls (Source: Forbes).
For example, should invalid patents be repeatedly rewarded with extended term based upon the litigious nature of the licensing entity? Abolish any review of the expert agency to correct mistakes, and even where the Patent Owner agrees to a reexamination the USPTO must presume the patent valid? — of course not.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 9,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
Let's personalize your content