Difference between revisions of "The Truth Behind Patent Trolls"
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
imported>Albert |
imported>Albert |
||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
| scope="col" align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Trademark Examining Attorneys''' | | scope="col" align="center" style="background:#f0f0f0;"|'''Trademark Examining Attorneys''' | ||
|- | |- | ||
| − | | align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"| eDekka LLC || align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"|101 || align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"|101 | + | | align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"| eDekka LLC || align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"|101 || align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"|101 |
|- | |- | ||
| − | | align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"| Data Carriers LLC || align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"|85 || align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"|85 | + | | align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"| Data Carriers LLC || align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"|85 || align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"|85 |
|- | |- | ||
| − | | align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"| Shipping and Transit LLC || align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"|69 || align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"|0² | + | | align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"| Shipping and Transit LLC || align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"|69 || align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"|0² |
|- | |- | ||
| − | | align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"| Cryptopeak Solutions LLC || align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"|66 || align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"|66 | + | | align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"| Cryptopeak Solutions LLC || align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"|66 || align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"|66 |
|- | |- | ||
| − | | align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"| Hawk Technology Systems LLC || align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"|61 || align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"|3 | + | | align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"| Hawk Technology Systems LLC || align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"|61 || align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"|3 |
|- | |- | ||
| − | | align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"| Rothschild Connected Devices Innovations LLC || align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"|60 || align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"|59 | + | | align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"| Rothschild Connected Devices Innovations LLC || align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"|60 || align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"|59 |
|- | |- | ||
| − | | align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"| Wetro Lan LLC || align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"|56 || align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"|55 | + | | align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"| Wetro Lan LLC || align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"|56 || align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"|55 |
|- | |- | ||
| − | | align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"| Loramax LLC || align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"|50 || align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"|50 | + | | align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"| Loramax LLC || align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"|50 || align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"|50 |
|- | |- | ||
| − | | align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"| Genaville LLC || align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"|50 || align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"|50 | + | | align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"| Genaville LLC || align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"|50 || align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"|50 |
|- | |- | ||
| − | | align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"| Oberalis LLC || align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"|50 || align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"|50 | + | | align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"| Oberalis LLC || align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"|50 || align="center" style="background:#f9f9f9;"|50 |
|} | |} | ||
Revision as of 16:10, 11 March 2016
Hypothesis 1: Most Patent Assertion Entities are drivers of innovation, and incorrectly labeled as patent trolls.
Method 1: Find list of PAEs, sort by location, number of lawsuits filed, damages. Need to control for size of company and sector.
Top 10 PAEs in 2015, according to (Unified)
| Company Name | Total Lawsuits Filed¹ | Lawsuits Filed in Eastern District of Texas¹ | Trademark Examining Attorneys |
| eDekka LLC | 101 | 101 | |
| Data Carriers LLC | 85 | 85 | |
| Shipping and Transit LLC | 69 | 0² | |
| Cryptopeak Solutions LLC | 66 | 66 | |
| Hawk Technology Systems LLC | 61 | 3 | |
| Rothschild Connected Devices Innovations LLC | 60 | 59 | |
| Wetro Lan LLC | 56 | 55 | |
| Loramax LLC | 50 | 50 | |
| Genaville LLC | 50 | 50 | |
| Oberalis LLC | 50 | 50 |
¹ Data aggregated via LexMachina ² 79% of cases filed in Southern District of Florida
648 total cases, 519 in E.D. Tex. 80.09% of all patent litigation cases filed in 2015 were filed in E.D. Texas.
Questions:
How do you determine where you can file your patent cases?
What is the Judge Gilstrap's rate for number of patent litigation cases where the defendant wins?
Hypothesis 2: Patent litigation is increasing, but only because of the uncertain nature of technological developments and how patent claims apply to that. Patent litigation surges are consistent with major shifts in technological developments
- High tech is the only sector where a majority of cases were NPE related
Method: Find a reliable graph of developments within the technology sector and match it to the one below [1]:
Interesting facts that may deserve extra research
- Historically, the Eastern District of Texas is the top patent dispute venue. In 2015, 44% of all patent litigation was filed in E.D. Texas, most of which were assigned to Judge Rodney Gilstrap
