Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Patent Quality, Post-Grant Review, And the GAO Report on Patent Litigation
One of the many elements of the sweeping America Invents Act of 2012 (AIA) was a directive to the Government Accountability Office (GAO) requesting a report on factors affecting patent litigation. In particular, the GAO was charged with assessing the extent to which so-called “patent trolls” were damaging patent litigation in the United States. This arose from concerns voiced by some that patent trolls, or non-practicing entities (NPEs), were buying patents on technology and software they had no intention of actually producing in order to bring nuisance suits against companies and others in an attempt to secure settlements and licensing agreements. Essentially, patent trolls were accused of abusing the patent system to build a revenue stream based on forcing companies to pay up or risk potentially expensive litigation.
The GAO released its report in August. Perhaps surprisingly, the GAO found that NPEs were not the main contributor to alleged problems with patent litigation in the United States. Instead, the GAO concluded that poor patent quality was to blame for most nuisance infringement suits. Its analysis showed that companies that make products brought most of the patent infringement lawsuits and that non-practicing entities brought only about 20% of all lawsuits. The GAO report also concluded that rather than focusing on the identity of the litigants, emphasis should be placed on improving the quality of issued patents and the examination process in order to strengthen the U.S. patent system. See the report at'http://1.usa.gov/17QD7Uw.
The key message from the GAO seems to be, then, that in-house counsel concerned with a perceived growth in patent troll activity should be placing the blame on the quality of issued patents. In practical terms, there might not appear to be much that in-house counsel can do to remedy this situation, other than ensure their own company's patents are strong and enforceable and that they follow proper licensing procedures for patents they do not own.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?