The growing problem of patent trolling

Lauren Cohen,Umit G Gurun,Scott Duke Kominers,Umit G. Gurun

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad2686

IF: 56.9

2016-04-29

Science

Abstract:Cash-hungry patent trolls are squelching innovation—and should be screened out

multidisciplinary sciences

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The growing problem of patent trolling

Lauren Cohen,Umit G Gurun,Scott Duke Kominers,Umit G. Gurun

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aad2686

IF: 56.9

2016-04-29

Science

Abstract:Cash-hungry patent trolls are squelching innovation—and should be screened out

multidisciplinary sciences
Patent Trolling and Intellectual Property: Challenges for Innovations

Maryna Utkina,Olha Bondarenko,Petr Malanchuk

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18280/ijsse.110108

2021-02-28

International Journal of Safety and Security Engineering

Abstract:Nowadays effective legal protection of intellectual activity results is one of the most urgent issues. First, of mind, this is because, in the context of globalization processes, society is moving into a relatively new era, when the main value is information and knowledge in the context of the qualities to create something new. Against this background, patent trolling research emerges full-blown as one of the main negative trends in the development of intellectual property and which became widespread worldwide. The article begins with a research of various theoretical and legal approaches to understanding the concept of “patent trolling”, the reasons for its emergence, and its influence on intellectual property in the world. Based on the analysis of scientific literature, international acts, and legislative acts of different countries, the author discloses its experience in the possible solutions to patent trolling prevention.

English Else
Patent Trolling Why Bio & Pharmaceuticals are at Risk

Robin Feldman,W. Nicholson Price

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2395987

2014-01-01

SSRN Electronic Journal

Abstract:Patent trolls — also known variously as non-practicing entities, patent assertion entities, and patent monetizers — are a top priority on legislative and regulatory reform agendas. In the modern debates, however, the biopharmaceutical industry goes conspicuously unmentioned. Although biopharmaceuticals are paradigmatically centered on patents, conventional wisdom holds that biopharmaceuticals are largely unthreatened by trolls. This article shows that the conventional wisdom is wrong, both theoretically and descriptively. In particular, the article presents a ground-breaking study of the life science holdings of 5 major universities to determine if these might be attractive to monetizers. This was deliberately a light, rather than an exhaustive, search. Nevertheless, we identified dozens of patents that could be deployed against current industries. These include patents on active ingredients of drugs; methods of treatment; screening methods to identify new drugs; manufacturing methods; dosage forms; and ancillary technologies that could be deployed in a “peddler’s bag” approach. The article describes the types of patents we found, including an example of each type. In deciding whether to undertake this analysis, we lost sleep over whether the potential for harm outweighed the potential benefit. If reform efforts are not undertaken, our work could do no more than provide a handy road map for those who would follow. However, with scattered anecdotal evidence suggesting that monetization is moving into biopharmaceuticals, life sciences trolling is predictable and in its infancy. If reforms are implemented before the problem proliferates, legislators and regulators could cabin the activity before it becomes deeply entrenched and too much harm occurs.

English Else
Empirical Evidence on the Behavior and Impact of Patent Trolls: A Survey

Lauren Cohen,Umit Gurun,Scott Duke Kominers,Umit G. Gurun

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2708224

2015-01-01

SSRN Electronic Journal

Abstract:We survey the empirical literature on non-practicing entity (NPE) litigation behavior and its consequences. We document both aggregate trends and cross-sectional differences amongst various types of NPEs. Survey evidence illustrates a number of ways in which NPEs can potentially act opportunistically, and indicates at least some instances and consequences of observed NPE opportunism. Large-sample empirical work has recently begun corroborating and amplifying the findings from survey evidence. NPEs on average behave as "patent trolls." Indeed, NPEs hold and frequently litigate patents that are likely to be at least partially invalidated; moreover, NPEs, target cash irrespective of its relation to alleged infringement. Cash-targeting is neither the main driver of practicing entity (PE) intellectual property (IP) litigation, nor of non-IP litigation against publicly traded firms. The empirical evidence suggests, however, that not all NPEs exhibit trolling behavior -- the cash-targeting observed in the data is primarily the behavior of large patent aggregators, rather than small inventors. NPE patent trolling has a real negative impact on targeted firms, without any increase in innovation, technology transfer, or other counterbalancing benefits measured thus far.

English Else
Patent Trolling as Problem of Intellectual Property Rights

V. V. Volik,V. Yemelyanov,I. Sokorynskyi,L. Ryabovol,S. Diachenko

Abstract:The article describes the concept of patent trolling as a modern problem of intellectual property rights protection in Ukraine and the world. The purpose of patent trolling as an offense and the negative consequences associated with its commission is determined. It has been established that one of the ways to counteract patent trolling is to adopt appropriate legislative acts. Taking into account the experience of the USA and Germany in the field of prevention of patent trolling. The emphasis is made on such ways of counteracting patent trolling as the duty of the person who holds the patent to review the dispute by a court to make a pledge in the amount of the potential costs of the parties to the trial, as well as the reimbursement of all costs to the party losing the dispute. It has been identified that Ukrainian legislation approaches differently the definition of the conditions for the patenting of inventions, utility models, industrial designs, which promotes the proliferation of patent trolling and indicates the need to provide them with the same conditions of protection. The content and reservations regarding the initiative of the European Union to create the Unified Patent Court and the introduction of a unified European patent are considered.

Law,Business
Strategic uses of patents in markets for technology: A story of fabless firms, brokers and trolls

Julien Pénin

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jebo.2012.09.007

2012-11-01

Abstract:This paper analyses the strategic uses of patents in markets for technology. In particular, we study the behaviors of technological firms, patent brokers and patent trolls and explore their consequences on the amount of R&D investments of the economy. We show that patent brokers, in their pure form, are R&D increasing (i.e. they increase the R&D investments of both supplier and manufacturing firms) while patent trolls, in their pure form, are R&D decreasing. We also show that, paradoxically, an optimal positive level of trolling may exist if the probability to secure market transactions and the probability to encounter trolls are positively correlated. Then we discuss the normative implications of this research. Among others, we argue that changes in patent laws are needed in order to limit the possibility of trolling; however, the difficulty is that those changes might also affect the development of technological firms and brokers. Several possible evolutions of international patent laws are hence discussed.

economics
Escaping the patent trolls: The impact of non‐practicing entity litigation on firm innovation strategies

Kenneth G. Huang,Mei‐Xuan Li,Carl Hsin‐Han Shen,Yanzhi Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/smj.3606

IF: 8.3

2024-04-21

Strategic Management Journal

Abstract:Research Summary Non‐practicing entities (NPEs) are firms that accumulate and acquire patents but do not further develop or implement the patented inventions (known as patent trolling). NPEs seek to receive royalties or profits through out‐of‐court settlements in patent infringement cases. We examine how firms targeted by NPEs in NPE‐initiated litigations (i.e., target firms) shift their innovation strategies and trajectories in response to heightened litigation risks. We theorize and show that after the initial lawsuit, target firms draw more upon their in‐house technologies to reduce the legal ground for further lawsuits. Furthermore, nontarget firms in related technology areas shift their innovation activities away from those of target firms under high NPE litigation risks. These effects are more pronounced with higher innovation costs and under more competitive product markets. Managerial Summary Non‐practicing entities (NPEs) are known as patent trolls that accumulate and acquire patents but do not further develop or implement these patented inventions. These patent trolls aim to obtain royalties or profits through out‐of‐court settlements in patent infringement cases. We investigate how firms targeted by patent trolls in litigations (i.e., target firms) change their innovation strategies and trajectories to deal with increased NPE litigation risks. After the initial lawsuit, we find that these target firms use their in‐house technologies more to reduce the legal ground for future lawsuits. Moreover, nontarget firms in related technology areas move their innovation activities away from those of target firms under high litigation risks. These effects are stronger when innovation costs are higher and under more competitive product markets.

management,business
Legal Issues: Reining in Patent Trolls: Congress Tries Again

George H. Pike

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2963235

2015-01-01

SSRN Electronic Journal

Abstract:Recall from your high school civics class that any Congressional bill that has not been enacted into law at the end of the two-year Congressional session is said to have “died.” What your civics class may or may not have said, is that for some legislative proposals, it is very common for bills to be reintroduced in the next Congress, to either build on the work that already took place, or to get a new lease on life in the changed political climate that often accompanies a new session of Congress. Such is the case with the Innovation Act, a patent reform proposal first introduced in 2013 in the House of Representatives that died at the end of 2014 and has just been re-introduced into the new Congress (Introduced as H.R 9). The proposal was and remains a response to the perceived problem of “patent trolls”, persons or companies who buy up patents and then target enterprises and entrepreneurs who work in the same area of the patent and charge them with patent infringement. The classic and most pejorative patent troll business model is not the legitimate exploitation of the patent for innovation, but the generation of revenue through lawsuits, lawsuit settlements, or licensing fees under threat of a lawsuit.

English Else
Patent Enforcement: A Comparative Review Preventing Patent Trolling in Europe

Benjamin FRANCO,Cristian BANACU,,

DOI: https://doi.org/10.35219/mms.2018.3.09

2018-09-15

Abstract:The US has made significant progress in the patent legislation landscape as evidenced by the US Patent Act in the Constitution and America Invents Act (AIA) of 2011. Nevertheless, patent suits by non-practicing entities (NPEs) have been on the increase over the past ten years. Major corporations, especially, such as Apple and Samsung have been on the receiving end of the litigation as NPEs target their large cash holdings. A closer look at the patent laws in the US and Europe reveals subtle differences in the grace period, publication of patent, and the application of patent rights across member states. Given the preceding facts, vital action points for the European market include the enactment of laws that prevent patent trolls as opposed to punishing NPEs after the act and reduction of litigation costs for lowquality patents.

English Else
How do patent trolls affect the technological innovation of Chinese enterprises? Evidence from enterprise patent survey data in China

Zhifeng Yin,Jian Guo,Zhen Sun,Mindan Zhou

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jengtecman.2022.101695

IF: 4.489

2022-07-01

Journal of Engineering and Technology Management

Abstract:Based on the 2017 China Patent Survey data, this study examines how contact with patent trolls affects Chinese enterprises’ technological innovation. The results indicate that the presence of patent trolls in the market may be beneficial for stimulating Chinese enterprises’ awareness of intellectual property rights and improving their technological innovation, indicated by increased R&D investment and patent quantity. However, direct contact with patent trolls does not improve patent value. Such contact further negatively affects patent implementation, as demonstrated by a decreasing share of self-implemented patents and an increasing share of licensed patents. Our findings reveal a “patent troll infection” among enterprises, which hinders patented technology implementation.

management,business,engineering, industrial
DIMINISHING THE ATTRACTIVENESS OF TROLLING: THE IMPACTS OF RECENT JUDICIAL ACTIVITY ON NON-PRACTICING ENTITIES

Holly Forsberg

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5195/tlp.2012.94

2012-04-13

Pittsburgh Journal of Technology Law and Policy

Abstract:The United States patent system has increasingly been faced with complications presented by a type of non-practicing entity known as ̳patent trolls‘—patent owner entities that do not actively innovate, develop or manufacture patented material but instead seek to profit from patent ownership through licensing agreements and litigation. This article explores arguments on both sides of the non-practicing entity debate and evaluates perceptions of this activity as both an accessible secondary commodities market and a litigation-based business model.

English Else
PROBLEMS OF CRIMINAL LAW EVALUATION OF PATENT TROLLING

V.V. Rovneyko

DOI: https://doi.org/10.35634/2412-9593-2020-30-2-282-288

2020-04-23

Abstract:The article deals with the issues of criminal law and legal assessment of patent trolling, which, on the one hand, is a kind of abuse of law and violation of the principle of good faith of participants in civil legal relations, and, on the other hand, has a sufficient degree of public danger and prevalence to be the basis of criminal liability. The author's conclusions are based on the study of media materials and judicial practice. Most of the “victims” of patent trolling pay money, not being mistaken about the legality of the claims, but being guided by the desire to avoid legal costs and other problems associated with litigation. Establishing the criminal legal nature of patent trolling is somewhat problematic, since it is a combination of fraud and extortion in the broad sense of these concepts. Signs of existing crimes, such as fraud (article 159 of the criminal code) and extortion (article 163 of the criminal code), contain definitions of these concepts in a narrow sense. This does not allow such actions to be classified as specified crimes.
Patent Trolls and Schumpeter's Creative Destruction

Karol Śledzik,Karol ledzik

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2424943

2014-01-01

SSRN Electronic Journal

Abstract:There is no doubt that intellectual property should be protected because it is particularly vulnerable to "stealing". However, under the law for some time this "protection" is used to make profit by "Not Practicing Entities" - (the NPE's) also called Patent Trolls. Activity of Patent Trolls companies can significantly contribute to inhibit the diffusion process in the knowledge based economy. As Schumpeter recognized the concept of dynamic capitalism was doomed to fail, because the increased efficiency of the capitalist enterprise would lead to monopolistic structures and loss of the idea of entrepreneurship. Today we may risk statement that over-regulation in the field of patent protection in conjunction with the unfair practices of companies Patent Trolls may lead to stop the development of Knowledge Based Economy. The purpose of this article is to describe the abuse of intellectual property rights protection for companies that are "Non-Practicing Entities" (Patent Trolls) in the light of J.A. Schumpeter’s creative destruction concept.
Patent Trolls: Evidence from Targeted Firms

Lauren Cohen,Umit G. Gurun,Scott Duke Kominers

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1287/mnsc.2018.3147

IF: 5.4

2019-09-03

Management Science

Abstract:We provide the first large-sample evidence on the behavior and impact of nonpracticing entities (NPEs) in the intellectual property space. We find that, on average, NPEs appear to behave as opportu...

management,operations research & management science
Trolling the U.S. and EU Patent System: Solved by a Loser-Pays-Attorney-Fees Regime?

Milan Voet

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3463481

2018-01-01

SSRN Electronic Journal

Abstract:Frivolous litigation over patent issues poses a significant barrier to innovation, especially in United States where so-called “patent trolls” or PAEs are responsible for most legal conflicts on patent issues. In comparison, Europe has far less PAE-activity than the United States, but the number of such cases in Europe has increased in recent years. Although the situation is complex, the differences between PAE-activity in Europe and the United States are most likely caused by the use of different legal frameworks for fee-shifting, i.e. the presence and absence of a loser-pays-attorney-fees regime, respectively.In analyzing the arguments for and against moving to a loser-pays system, this paper concludes that the existing troll problem can be reduced by adopting, as a standard practice, a system under which the loser must pay the winner’s attorney fees. It follows that a loser-pays-attorney-fees system disincentivizes PAEs from filing frivolous suits, increases the quality of patents in lawsuits, ensures a more equal bargaining position for defendants in settlement negotiations, and results in lower settlements.Nevertheless, this paper also cautions that the benefits of fee-shifting substantially depend on the mechanism chosen. Limiting the reimbursable fees by pre-determined caps might render fee-shifting less effective. However, placing no limits on reimbursable fees might disincentivize innovation and potentially threaten access to justice.Therefore, this paper recommends two features to find a right balance between the reimbursable costs subject to fee-shifting on the one hand, and innovation and access to justice on the other. First, legislative and judicial authorities are advised to implement certain procedural safeguards to shift only reasonable and proportionate attorney fees. This can be accomplished through an issue-based approach and/or the adoption of mandatory case management conferences.Second, automatic fee-shifting should be limited to “PAE losers” only. In determining which parties should be exempted from automatic fee-shifting, this paper suggests, in line with the never adopted working-requirement, to exempt only those parties that submit proof of adequate patent commercialization.

English Else
UNFAIR COMPETITION IN PATENT LAW (PATENT TROLLING)

Alla Diduk,Stepan Lytvyn,Roman Pysanyy

DOI: https://doi.org/10.18372/2307-9061.65.17047

2022-12-30

Abstract:The purpose of this article is to consider problematic issues regarding unfair competition in patent law, in particular, patent trolling. For this purpose, the concepts of «patent trolling» and «patent troll» were analyzed. Types of patent trolls are also defined. The signs and peculiarities of patent trolling in Ukraine and the reasons for its spread are established. The manifestation of unfair competition, consisting in the abuse of intellectual property rights, is considered. Recommendations are given on introducing an effective mechanism to combat patent trolls and bring them to justice for unfair competition. The methodological basis of the research is general scientific and special methods of scientific knowledge. The use of these methods made it possible to describe and propose ways to solve the problem of unfair competition in patent law, in particular, patent trolling. Results: no provision in national legislation directly provides for the liability of patent trolls for abuse of rights, including under competition law. Ukrainian legislation does not provide for the liability of patent trolls for the abuse of rights, which in a certain way have a conditional nature, since they are provided under their personal responsibility in terms of compliance of the object with the conditions of patentability or the criteria of protectionability. In this regard, it is necessary to eliminate the causes and conditions that contribute to the mentioned negative phenomenon at the legislative level. Discussion: in fact, «patent trolls» are neither product manufacturers nor inventors, but only possess property rights to objects of intellectual property rights, buying up protective documents for them and realizing these rights only by prohibiting their use, initiating lawsuits, in fact, that’s why they got that name.

English Else
The Uneasy Case Against Copyright Trolls

Shyamkrishna Balganesh

2012-08-15

Abstract:The copyright troll and the phenomenon of copyright trolling have thus far received surprisingly little attention in discussions of copyright law and policy. A copyright troll refers to an entity that acquires a tailored interest in a copyrighted work with the sole objective of enforcing claims relating to that work against copiers in a zealous and dogmatic manner. Not being a creator, distributor, performer, or indeed user of the protected work, the copyright troll operates entirely in the market for copyright claims. With specialized skills in monitoring and enforcing copyright infringement, the troll is able to lower its litigation costs, enabling it to bring claims against defendants that an ordinary copyright owner might have chosen not to. As a matter of law, the copyright troll’s model usually complies with all of copyright’s formal rules. Courts have as a result struggled to find a coherent legal basis on which to curb the copyright troll. In this Article, I show that the real problem with the copyright troll originates in the connection between copyright’s stated goal of incentivizing creativity and the enforcement of copyright claims, which discussions of copyright law and policy fail to adequately capture. Copyright claims, much like other private law claims, are systematically under-enforced. This under-enforcement is neither purely fortuitous nor indeed marginal to the system, but instead operates as an important safety valve that introduces an informal breathing space into copyright’s functioning. Over time, this under-enforcement results in a balance between claims that are actionable and enforced, and those that are actionable but tolerated. It is precisely this balance that the advent of the troll disrupts, since it seeks to enforce claims that copyright owners would have otherwise tolerated. This Article unpacks the connection between the incentive to create and the incentive to enforce in copyright to show why the troll’s actions are indeed problematic, despite its formal compliance with copyright’s legal rules. In so doing, it shows how the troll exploits the market for copyright claims, which might otherwise have important upsides, and argues that a permanent solution to the problem will entail targeting the troll’s incentive structure rather than using any of copyright’s existing doctrines.

Law,Engineering
Do Patent-Trolls Cause the High-Tech Firms to Delist?

Sayla Sowat Siddiqui

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3905461

2021-01-01

SSRN Electronic Journal

Abstract:This paper investigates the impact of non-practicing entity (NPE) patent litigation on the delisting of the firms in the U.S. stock market. Using a sample of high-tech and patent intensive firms from the U.S. market between 2000 and 2019, we find that the frivolous patent trolling by the NPEs is positively associated with the delisting decision of the defendant firms. This result is more pronounced when the firms are small, young, under distress and experience negative sentiment in the market. We ensure the causality of this relationship by using the Anti-troll law and American Invents Act targeted to curb the threat of NPE trolls. We also find that this effect is influenced by the cost of NPE litigation and that going private can significantly mitigate the threat of NPE trolls. Our result recommends that policies aimed to ease the threat of the NPE patent trolls is important to safeguard the steadiness of the innovation intensive companies in the U.S. stock market.

English Else
The Escape-Infringement Effect of Blocking Patents on Innovation and Economic Growth

Angus C. Chu,Shiyuan Pan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/s136510051100068x

2011-01-01

Macroeconomic Dynamics

Abstract:This study develops a Schumpeterian growth model to analyze the effects of different patent instruments on innovation. We first analyze patent breadth, which captures the traditional positive effect of patent rights on innovation. Then, we consider a profit-division rule between entrants and incumbents. Given the division of profit, increasing the share of profit assigned to incumbents reduces entrants' incentives for innovation. This aspect of blocking patents captures the recently proposed negative effect of patent rights on innovation. Finally, blocking patents generate a nonmonotonic effect on innovation when the step size of innovation is endogenous because of a novel escape-infringement effect. Calibrating the model to aggregate data, we find that a marginal increase in the blocking effect of patent protection is likely to enhance economic growth.

The growing problem of patent trolling

The growing problem of patent trolling

Patent Trolling and Intellectual Property: Challenges for Innovations

Patent Trolling Why Bio & Pharmaceuticals are at Risk

Empirical Evidence on the Behavior and Impact of Patent Trolls: A Survey

Patent Trolling as Problem of Intellectual Property Rights

Strategic uses of patents in markets for technology: A story of fabless firms, brokers and trolls

Escaping the patent trolls: The impact of non‐practicing entity litigation on firm innovation strategies

Legal Issues: Reining in Patent Trolls: Congress Tries Again

Patent Enforcement: A Comparative Review Preventing Patent Trolling in Europe

How do patent trolls affect the technological innovation of Chinese enterprises? Evidence from enterprise patent survey data in China

DIMINISHING THE ATTRACTIVENESS OF TROLLING: THE IMPACTS OF RECENT JUDICIAL ACTIVITY ON NON-PRACTICING ENTITIES

PROBLEMS OF CRIMINAL LAW EVALUATION OF PATENT TROLLING

Patent Trolls and Schumpeter's Creative Destruction

Patent Trolls: Evidence from Targeted Firms

Trolling the U.S. and EU Patent System: Solved by a Loser-Pays-Attorney-Fees Regime?

UNFAIR COMPETITION IN PATENT LAW (PATENT TROLLING)

The Uneasy Case Against Copyright Trolls

Do Patent-Trolls Cause the High-Tech Firms to Delist?

The Escape-Infringement Effect of Blocking Patents on Innovation and Economic Growth