Patent assertion litigation and the patent "trolls" debate
Author(s)
Bibliographic Information
Patent assertion litigation and the patent "trolls" debate
（Laws and legislation）（Intellectual property in the 21st century）
Nova Publishers, c2013
Available at / 1 libraries
-
No Libraries matched.
- Remove all filters.
Note
Includes index
Description and Table of Contents
Description
Congress has recently demonstrated significant ongoing interest in litigation by "patent assertion entities" (PAEs), which are colloquially known as "patent trolls" and sometimes referred to as "non-practising entities" (NPEs). The PAE business model focuses not on developing or commercialising patented inventions but on buying and asserting patents, often against firms that have already begun using the claimed technology after developing it independently, unaware of the PAE patent. PAEs include not only free-standing businesses but patent holding subsidiaries, affiliates, and shells of operating companies that want to participate in the PAE industry and/or a new means of countering competitors. The proliferation of PAEs was among the central factors raised in support of the most recent patent reform legislation, the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act of 2011 (AIA). However, the AIA contains relatively few provisions that arguably might impact PAEs, apparently because of lively debate over what, if anything, should be done about them. In the 113th Congress, the Saving High-Tech Innovators from Egregious Legal Disputes (SHIELD) Act of 2013 (H.R. 845) has been introduced in an effort to affect the number of lawsuits filed by PAEs. This book reviews the current debate and controversy surrounding PAEs and their effect on innovation, examines the reasons for the rise in PAE litigation, and explores the legislative options available to Congress if it decides that these are issues that should be addressed.
Table of Contents
- Preface
- An Overview of the "Patent Trolls" Debate
- Intellectual Property: Assessing Factors That Affect Patent Infringement Litigation Could Help Improve Patent Quality
- The Supreme Court Decision in Microsoft v. i4i: Implications for Innovation Policy
- Statement of Mark Chandler, Senior Vice President & General Counsel, Cisco Systems, Inc Hearing on "Abusive Patent Litigation: The Impact on American Innovation & Jobs, & Potential Solutions"
- Testimony of Janet L Dhillon, Executive Vice President, General Counsel & Corporate Secretary, J C Penny, Inc Hearing on "Abusive Patent Litigation: The Impact on American Innovation & Jobs, & Potential Solutions"
- Statement of John Boswell, Senior Vice President & General Counsel, SAS, Inc. Hearing on "Abusive Patent Litigation: The Impact on American Innovation & Jobs, & Potential Solutions"
- Testimony of C Graham Gerst, Partner, Global IP Law Group, LLC. Hearing on "Abusive Patent Litigation: The Impact on American Innovation & Jobs, & Potential Solutions"
- Statement of Philip S Johnson, Chief Intellectual Property Counsel, Johnson & Johnson. Hearing on "Abusive Patent Litigation: The Impact on American Innovation & Jobs, & Potential Solutions"
- Testimony of Dana Rao, Vice President & Associate General Counsel for Intellectual Property & Litigation, Adobe Systems Inc Hearing on "Abusive Patent Litigation: The Impact on American Innovation & Jobs, & Potential Solutions"
- Index.
by "Nielsen BookData"
