Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Patent Trolls in Today's economy

480 views

Published on

NPE in today’s Patent economy - law and regression analysis - By: Alexander Alduncin M.A. & Paola Buitron J.D.

Published in: Law
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Patent Trolls in Today's economy

  1. 1. NPE in today’s Patent economy Alexander Alduncin M.A. & Paola Buitron J.D.
  2. 2. What is a Patent Troll?
  3. 3. The term “patent troll” is usually reserved for those who acquire patents from inventors or companies, and then sue operating companies for patent infringement. Continental Paper Bag Co. v. Eastern Paper Bag Co Supreme Court, 1908. Established the principle that patent holders have no obligation to use their patent.
  4. 4. S.1137 Protecting American Talent and Entrepreneurship Act of 2015
  5. 5. Customer Stay Large Loophole allows many manufactures to qualify as customer if they buy/import components  Customer Stay Provision Allows a Court to stay a motion against a retailer or end user that is accused of infringing a patent or patents pending resolution against the Manufacture.
  6. 6. Why not Product Liability?
  7. 7. Product Liability refers to the obligations or duties of manufactures, other middleman, or retailers to consumers, purchasers, users, and even bystanders when a product is found to be defective. Under common law, Warranty Action is a theory under which a plaintiff could bring a suit for personal injury or property damage caused by a defective product
  8. 8. Decline in patent suit filings NPE cases concentrated in certain district courts as 5 out of 94 district courts account for 42% of all identified NPE decisions from 1995 to 2014 (p. 16)
  9. 9. Data • UGA Patent Litigation Datafile (Henry et al. 2013) • All cases where District Court (DC) ruled invalid patent, valid but no infringe, or valid & infringe. No summary decisions, dismissals, etc • Removed observations with no listed dates, missing data • Divided into 2 subsets: 1929-2006 & 1991-2006 • Also incorporate Lex Machina & PWC summary reports on patent litigation, 2013-2015
  10. 10. Premise #1 Cases Decided Over Time
  11. 11. Premise #2 Repeat Litigators
  12. 12. MLogit Regression Results
  13. 13. Delaware District Court
  14. 14. Future Steps • Identify other important variables? • Updated data for new trends- Sag (2014) dataset • Incorporate premise 3 via regression if possible, or summary statistics otherwise • Look at thrown out cases

×