1,181
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
The number of patent applications sent to the USPTO has continued to increase over the years. Although innovation has not slowed, critics of the patent system are abundant and demand stricter reform. The USPTO
*Many patents are approved because [[United States Patent and Trademark Office]] examiners don’t have time or resources The number of patent applications sent to the USPTO has continued to search all increase over the relevant references**The current patent backlogyears. Although innovation has not slowed, as critics of January 2016, is 561,585the patent system point to numerous flaws in the patent system and demand stricter reform. Generalized criticisms include patents slowing down or even preventing the government from enacting necessary policy reform and the creation of impractical or pointless patents which result in expensive litigation [http://www.usptowipo.govint/patent-law/dashboardsen/patentsdevelopments/mainintro.dashxml (USPTO)html]**Total Pendency. More specifically, The USPTO continues to grant patents without the necessary time between patent filing and patent action, is 26or resources to search all relevant references.1 months, as As of January 2016. , the current patent backlog is 561,585 [http://www.uspto.gov/corda/dashboards/patents/main.dashxml?CTNAVID=1004 (USPTO)]***Total Pendency goal time is 20 months by FY2019, leading to more cases being referred to lower, random courts. These courts increase the cost of processing a patent application and rely on juries without technical or procedural expertise to decide whether high level technology or processes satisfy the requirements for protection [httphttps://wwwhbr.uspto.govorg/corda2015/dashboards03/patents/mainwhy-congress-needs-to-pass-the-innovation-act-this-time].dashxml?CTNAVID=1004 (USPTO)]* “The past three decades Additionally, critics believe that the amount of wanton patent-granting have litigation and patent infringement claimed has created a "disastrous environment for innovation. Today it’s practically impossible to build anything without violating a patent of some kind—and risking a multimillion-dollar lawsuit for your troubles.” " [http://www.wired.com/2012/11/ff-steven-levy-the-patent-problem/ (Wired)]*Technology industry has too many overly broad patents, leading to incredibly silly patent litigation cases**Amazon “owns” the process that allows people to buy things with a single click. **Apple now claims the exclusive right to sell rounded-edged, rectangular-shaped communication devices on which icons are arranged Litigation and lawsuits result in a grid with a row of persistent icons at the bottom**A small company significant decrease in Tyler, Texas, once demanded more than $600 million from Google because of the design of the borders around its display ads.*‘’’Patent Trolls’’’ are nonpracticing entities that don’t make products but exist solely on the revenue of its patents**Costs a few thousand dollars to secure a patent, which can bring product development as proven in millions through litigation**It is usually more expensive to win a case against a troll than to just settle*Last year, for the first time, spending by Apple and 2015 as Google on patent lawsuits and unusually big-dollar Apple invested more in supporting patent purchases exceeded spending on research and development of new products, according to public filingslitigation than in R&D. [http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/08/technology/patent-wars-among-tech-giants-can-stifle-competition.html?_r=0 (NYT-PW)]*The biotechnology industry as a whole provides new ethical challenges to the patent system and introduces new competitive threats such as me-too drugs. Me-too drugs: a drug that is are approved after a pioneering drug and is the 'same'; it is not clinically superior to the original drug function as substitutes [http://www.who.int/intellectualproperty/topics/ip/Me-tooDrugs_Hollis1.pdf (WHO)]. The primary complaints on the patent system are about patent pools and patent trolls. The Prize System has been suggested as a viable solution, though it carries its own set of risks.
The current patent system in the United States is facing a fair amount criticism on multiple fronts. Skeptics have argued that the current system is broken as it allows the presence of patent trolls, though metrics regarding the prevalence of patent trolls are unclear. Several important pieces of legislation have been proposed to combat these reported patent trolls, as well as a "Prize System for Invention", which rewards innovative companies with monetary prizes instead of patents.
'''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.
However, another company that is considered a big patent troll, Oberalis does not file for trial by jury.
In cases that involve educational institutions (PAEs/NPEs but not patent trolls), the educational institution doesn't ask for a jury trial. In fact, the company being sued responds to the complaint with a jury demand. Some examples of this:
*Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation v. Apple Inc
*Trustees of Boston University v. Everlight Electronics Co
*The Regents of the University of California v. Micro Therapeutics Inc. et al
*Cambridge University Press et al v. Patton et al
→Current Issues Facing the Patent System
=Current Issues Facing the Patent System=
==Summary==
==Patent Pools==
==Patent Trolls==
Patent Trolls are an innovation bogeymen, with numerous research articles and legislation addressing ways to curb troll activity. Patent Trolls, also known as [[Patent Assertion Entities]] (PAEs), generate revenue through suing or threatening to sue businesses that infringe on patents. Experts dispute terms for such corporations, labeling them as either [[Patent Assertion Entities]] (PAEs) or [[Non-Practicing Entities]] (NPEs). 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 supposed infringement 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.
==Prize System for Inventions==
