Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
no edit summary
There is no widely agreed upon definition of 'Patent Troll', because it is often used interchangeably with the terms [[Patent Assertion Entities]] and [[Non-Practicing Entities]], whereas we make a distinction between these three terms. For our study, we define Patent Trolls as a 'person or entity that attempts to enforce patent rights against accused infringers far beyond the patent's actual value'[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_troll]. Their asked damages are far beyond the market value of the patent. This is a tactic used to scare small businesses in the initial demand letter, when pressing them to pay the fee to license the patent.
'''Hypothesis: Patent trolls will generally push for settlements and jury trials.'''
In all of the cases eDekka filed in 2015, each one asked for trial by jury.
*The Regents of the University of California v. Micro Therapeutics Inc. et al
*Cambridge University Press et al v. Patton et al
'''Why does everyone like Judge Rodney Gilstrap?'''
Out of Judge Rodney Gilstrap's 3743 terminated cases,
*2354 were Likely settlement: stipulated dismissal
*901 were Likely settlement: plaintiff voluntary dismissal
*152 Procedural consolidation
*151 procedural interdistrict transfer
*40 procedural: dismissal
*30 Claim defendant win
*11 Claim win: default judgement
*4 Procedural: intradistrict transfer
*2 Claimant win
*2 procedural: severance
Of Judge Janis Lynn Sammartino in S.D. Cal's 148 terminated cases
*63 were Likely settlement: stipulated dismissal
*40 were Likely settlement: plaintiff voluntary dismissal
*32 Procedural stay
*3 Procedural consolidation
*3 procedural interdistrict transfer
*4 procedural: dismissal
*1 Claim defendant win
*2 Claimant win
