Journal of Intellectual Property Rights

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

The Menace of Patent Trolls:What the World Can Learn from India


Affiliations
1 Symbiosis Law School, Viman Nagar, Pune, Maharashtra - 411 014, India
 

First coined in the 1990s, the term ‘patent troll’ has no legal definition and is commonly used in the business world to describe a non-performing entity that obtains the rights to a patent purely to profit from litigation without seeking to produce or further develop the said invention or method. This paper aims to discuss the techniques and modus operandi of such businesses to extract profit out of legitimate creators of products and services using cutting-edge science and technology. Patent trolls have attracted the attention of law enforcement agencies worldwide. As compared to India, they have been more successful in sustaining their business models in the west where the existing legal framework is still conducive to their sustenance. The policing of patent trolls is remarkably tricky as they gain power from the strength of the very patent protection regimes they reside in. The objective of this paper is to conduct a comparative analysis of the patent systems and legal frameworks in the United States, European Union and India, and to illustrate and discuss how non-Indian jurisdictions can take a leaf out of India’s safeguard mechanisms to prevent the sprouting menace of such businesses and protect the interests of both large companies and emerging start-ups. The methodology of comparison revolves around analysing the basic tenets of the existing patent systems, as well as the key historical cases of precedence in various jurisdictions. The study and analysis also take into consideration the interests of the various stakeholders such as individual inventors, startups, corporate businesses, governments, and the citizens involved. This paper is especially of relevance today because this continuing practice discourages innovators from investing time, effort and capital into the research and development of new technologies, without which the progress of society is hindered.

Keywords

Munich Convention, European Patent Convention, Indian Legislation, Non-Practicing Entities, Patents, Patent Trolls, Patent Assertion Entities, Post-Grant Review.
User
Notifications
Font Size

  • David B Y et al., The new patent intermediaries: Platforms, defensive aggregators and super-aggregators, Journal o f Economic Perspectives, 27 (2013) 45-66.

  • Peter N D, Levelling the patent playing field, John Marshall Review o f Intellectual Property Law, 6 (4) (2007) 636.

  • Axel H et al., Patent trolls, litigation and the market for innovation, SSRN Electronic Journal, (2014).

  • David B, Troll or no troll? Policing patent usage with an open post-grant review, Duke Law & Technology Review, 4 (1) (2005) 1-17.

  • Nathan M, The big idea: Funding Eureka!, Harvard Business Review, 88 (3) (2010).

  • Federal Trade Commission, The Evolving IP Marketplace: Aligning Patent Notice and Remedies with Competition, (2011) 67-68.

  • Nick G, The Patent Quality Improvement Act, www.usv.com/ 2013/05/the-patent-quality-improvement-act.php (accessed on 14 September 2018).

  • Ingrid L, Senator Charles Schumer Targets Patent Trolls, Wants USPTO to Review Infringement Suits before they Head to Court (1 May 2013).

  • Comments of Microsoft Corporation on the Impact of Patent Assertion Entity Activities on Innovation and Competition to Federal Trade Commission and U.S. Department of Justice Concerning Patent Litigation, http://www.ftc.gov/os/ comments/pae/pae-0046.pdf (accessed on 14 September 2018).

  • Comments of Google, Blackberry, Earthlink & Red Hat to the Federal Trade Commission and U.S. Department of Justice http://www.ftc.gov/os/comments/pae/pae-0047.pdf (accessed on 14 September 2018).

  • Thomas Edison (1898).

  • Magliocca G, Blackberries and Barnyards: Patent Trolls and the Perils of Innovation http://ssrn.com/abstract=921252 (accessed on 14 September 2018).

  • Gary S, To SMEs, patent trolls are an existential threat, FINANCIAL TIMES, https://www.ft.com/content/f88765bebda511e7-9836-b25f8adaa111 (accessed on 14 September 2018).

  • USPTO Releases Annual List of Top 10 Organizations Receiving Most U.S. Patents, US PATENT & TRADEMARK OFFICE, https://www.uspto.gov/aboutus/ news-updates/uspto-releases- annual-list-top-10-organizationsreceivingmost-us-patents (accessed on 14 September 2018).

  • Patent Tools and Links, US PATENT & TRADEMARK OFFICE, https://www.uspto.gov/patent (accessed on 14 September 2018).

  • Keim, B, Gobbledygook or the Future of Obvious in U.S. Patent Law? Teleflex v KSR, http://www.law.washington.edu/Casrip/Newsletter/Vol14/newsv14i1US2.html(accessed on 14 September 2018).

  • KSR v Teleflex 550 U.S. 398 (2007).

  • Article VI, § 2, U.S. Constitution.

  • Rule 12(b) (6), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

  • § 1338, 28 U.S. Code.

  • § 1454, 28 U.S. Code.

  • Rule 26(b) (1), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

  • Rule 26(c) (1) (G), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

  • Littlejohn v BIC Corp. 851 F.2d 673, 685 (1988).

  • Grab L, Equitable Concerns of eBay v Mercexchange: Did the Supreme Court successfully balance patent protection against patent trolls?, North Carolina Journal o f Law & Technology, 8 (2006) 231.

  • Gene Q, The Collapse of U.S. Patent Policy by a Supreme Court preoccupied with Patent Trolling, http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2018/06/04/collapse-patent-policy-supreme-court-patent-trolls/id=97985/ (accessed on 26 September 2018).

  • eBay v MercExchange 547 U.S. 388 (2006).

  • TC Heartland LLC v Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC 581 U.S. 2017.

  • Digital innovation downturn as patent trolls invade Europe, IP2Innovate, http://ip2innovate.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/04ZIP2I_Press-Release_EN_04042017.pdf (accessed on 14 September 2018).

  • Scalet P, Internet trading giants face patent challenge, ComputerWeekly.com, https://www.computerweekly.com/news/2240062310/Intemet-trading-giants-face-patent-challenge (accessed on 14 September 2018).

  • Rambus Inc. v Infineon Technologies AG 304 F. Supp. 2d 812.

  • Are the Patent Trolls here to get us?, https://hoiberg.com/omhoeiberg/artikler/are-the-patent-trolls-here-to-get-us (accessed on 16 September 2018).

  • Section 93, European Patent Convention, 1973.

  • Section 123, European Patent Convention, 1973.

  • Macdonald M, Beware of the troll, http://www.thelawyer.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=116783&d=pndpr&h=pnhpr&f=pnfpr (accessed on 14 September 2018).

  • Rantanen J, Slaying the troll: Litigation as an effective strategy against patent threats, Santa Clara Computer Hardware & Technology Law Journal, 23 (2006) 43-59.

  • Patent trolls are increasingly targeting Europe's innovators, The Guest Blog, https://guests.blogactiv.eu/2018/06/21/|sEP.ipatent-trolls-are-mcreasmgly-targeting-europesinnovators/ (accessed on 12 June 2019).

  • Section 25 (2), Patents Act, 1970.

  • Narula R, Intellectual Property Environment in India, http://www.ipfrontline.com/depts/article.asp?id=15279&dept id=6 (accessed on 16 September 2018).

  • Section 84, Patents Act, 1970.

  • Section 83, Patents Act, 1970.

  • Section 84(1)(a), Patents Act, 1970. 43 Section 84(7)(d), Patents Act, 1970.

  • Mueller J, The tiger awakens: The tumultuous transformation of India's patent system and the rise of Indian pharmaceutical innovation, University o f Pittsburgh Law Review, 6 (2007) 491-533.

  • Lemley M, Patent Reform Legislation - Public Comments on Substitute HR 2795 and the Role of the Antitrust Modernization Commission, http://www.amc.gov/commission_hearings/pdf/ (accessed on 10 October 2007).


Abstract Views: 333

PDF Views: 193




  • The Menace of Patent Trolls:What the World Can Learn from India

Abstract Views: 333  |  PDF Views: 193

Authors

Aindrani Sarker
Symbiosis Law School, Viman Nagar, Pune, Maharashtra - 411 014, India
Neha Reddy
Symbiosis Law School, Viman Nagar, Pune, Maharashtra - 411 014, India
Nehan Sethi
Symbiosis Law School, Viman Nagar, Pune, Maharashtra - 411 014, India

Abstract


First coined in the 1990s, the term ‘patent troll’ has no legal definition and is commonly used in the business world to describe a non-performing entity that obtains the rights to a patent purely to profit from litigation without seeking to produce or further develop the said invention or method. This paper aims to discuss the techniques and modus operandi of such businesses to extract profit out of legitimate creators of products and services using cutting-edge science and technology. Patent trolls have attracted the attention of law enforcement agencies worldwide. As compared to India, they have been more successful in sustaining their business models in the west where the existing legal framework is still conducive to their sustenance. The policing of patent trolls is remarkably tricky as they gain power from the strength of the very patent protection regimes they reside in. The objective of this paper is to conduct a comparative analysis of the patent systems and legal frameworks in the United States, European Union and India, and to illustrate and discuss how non-Indian jurisdictions can take a leaf out of India’s safeguard mechanisms to prevent the sprouting menace of such businesses and protect the interests of both large companies and emerging start-ups. The methodology of comparison revolves around analysing the basic tenets of the existing patent systems, as well as the key historical cases of precedence in various jurisdictions. The study and analysis also take into consideration the interests of the various stakeholders such as individual inventors, startups, corporate businesses, governments, and the citizens involved. This paper is especially of relevance today because this continuing practice discourages innovators from investing time, effort and capital into the research and development of new technologies, without which the progress of society is hindered.

Keywords


Munich Convention, European Patent Convention, Indian Legislation, Non-Practicing Entities, Patents, Patent Trolls, Patent Assertion Entities, Post-Grant Review.

References