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
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.
NPEs are a special type of entity that specifically purchases patents or patent rights but does not commodify the patent. The second kind, private parties, often use the patents they acquire for profit through damage or settlement awards, or royalties and licensing rights.
The state of Washington can pursue a lawsuit targeting a patent-assertion company under a 2015 law intended to stop "patenttrolls" from trying to extort settlements from small businesses, a Seattle federal judge ruled Friday, rejecting the company's arguments that the law violates its right to free speech.
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.
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.
A number of small providers are receiving patent demand letters with a settlement or licensing offer to avoid litigation. Many of these letters are a typical part of the playbook of entities that have been variously called “non-practicing entities” (NPEs) or “patenttrolls.” How should you respond? Should you respond?
This is the latest in the series titled “NPE Showcase,” where we discuss high-volume non-practicing entities (or as some call them, “patenttrolls”). Technologies is similar to other NPEs, asserting two patents against well-known companies for technology that has been around since the turn of the millennium.
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.
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 court where many patenttrolls file suit, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. 2 if motion no.
This is the latest in the series titled “NPE Showcase,” where we discuss high-volume non-practicing entities (or as some call them, “patenttrolls”). Sending a $COMPANY link within a social network would supposedly infringe InvesTrex’s patent. But why is InvesTrex’s patent so weak?
This is the latest in the series titled “NPE Showcase,” where we discuss high-volume non-practicing entities (or as some call them, “patenttrolls”). Sockeye owns a pair of patents broadly related to controlling a “display device” with a mobile phone. So what happened?
This is the latest in the series titled “NPE Showcase,” where we discuss high-volume non-practicing entities (or as some call them, “patenttrolls”). Many high-volume NPEs are subsidiaries of a larger company that segregates liability by creating separate LLCs for each subset of their patent portfolio.
This is the latest in the series titled “NPE Showcase,” where we discuss high-volume non-practicing entities (or as some call them, “patenttrolls”). Triumph IP claims to own a patent on technology that is vital to the 802.11 The question then becomes whether the patent actually covers the standard.
Welcome to the first installment of “NPE Showcase,” where we discuss high-volume non-practicing entities (or as some call them, “patenttrolls”). This installment will focus on a company named Cedar Lane Technologies and their recent patent enforcement efforts. and did so in bad faith.”
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 Correlation of Economic Conditions and Patent Litigation Some have argued that NPE litigation will increase this year with the expectation of a recession.
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