Once in a while, it’s fun to get creative about something you feel passionate about, and that’s how this “fairy tale” came to be. Over the course of the first three installments, the big and powerful B-Techs became frustrated when the New Innovators threatened their dominance, so they hatched a pernicious plan to bring down the pesky patentees.
So, yes: I wrote “a fairy tale.” Well, sort of. As I noted in the “first installment” on Monday, a bunch of things came together all at once—including a Sunday morning when I had a little extra time. So I cued up this story of how the Behemoth Tech companies became big and powerful because of their imaginative use of chips. But as time passes, innovation can be hard to replicate.
“A fairy tale?” you ask. Well, yes. Because every once in a while, even though the work has piled up, you feel energized and spirited about something enough during breakfast on a Sunday morning that ideas just well up and the words spring onto the page. And if you have a couple of spritely, cheerful teenage daughters who occasionally read stories, narratives intersect and you just have a little fun with things. And that’s what happened here. So, a fairy tale … of a sort. And here goes.
In posts here on my blog on March 27 and April 3, I described how in Evolutionary Intelligence v. Sprint et al. the district court for the Northern District of California invalidated a valuable pair of what had been durable software patents—a decision that in February the Federal Circuit upheld.
Both courts erred in overlooking valid claims, although in the wake of the wacky Alice ruling, such a decision might not have been unexpected.
I am honored to have drafted the brief on behalf of the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) in TC Heartland LLC v Kraft Food Group Brands LLC, U.S., No. 16-341 (2017), which concerns the appropriate scope of venue in patent infringement cases.
The brief supports the Federal Circuit interpretation of the general venue statute at 28 U.S.C. 1391 as providing a definition of “resides” applicable in the patent venue statute later in that chapter at 28 U.S.C. 1400(b).
Breaking news! Did you hear? “Patent troll disrupts safety of thousands; victims urge Congress to legislate.” So runs the headline from a recent article by reporter Amanda Ciccatelli at InsideCounsel.com.
Stop the presses!!! One patent troll is disrupting the safety of thousands, and its victims are urging Congress to legislate. Help!
In a recent piece for TheStreet.com, Kabir Sehgal writes about the emergence of patents as a tradable asset class.
He’s a little late to the party. A market for patents as valuable commodities has existed for at least two decades, maybe longer. And he’s a little off in the nomenclature: patents aren’t a “license to sell …”. They confer the right to exclude others from selling the patented invention.
It’s about time. Another voice in the innovation community has risen to counter the repetitive arguments of those favoring legislation to curb the purportedly diabolical actions of patent trolls. I’m looking forward to hearing more such voices.
Bob Pavey, Silicon Valley icon and partner emeritus at venture capital firm Morgenthaler Ventures, isn’t buying the rhetoric. Check out his sober opinion piece in the San Jose Mercury News on the march toward passing H.R.9, the “anti-troll” bill now out of committee and to be debated on the floor of the House of Representatives.
Intellectual Asset Management is today reporting on its blog on subjects near and dear to all of us: IP value, software patents in our “tricky” new era, legislation that could affect litigation, the environment post-Alice, and more.
Most interesting to me were the reports from Joff Wild, including on what Rockstar Consortium’s John Veschi said about software patents at SCOTUS:
“The charm of fishing is that it is the pursuit of what is elusive but attainable, a perpetual series of occasions for hope.” John Buchan
The war on patent assertion entities continues. Sometimes it’s just rhetoric, sometimes it’s real.
Two days ago the Oregon state legislature introduced a measure to curb the most egregious types of patent trolling: dunning letters threatening legal actions if small businesses don’t pay a licensing fee. It’s the same type of provision—essentially a consumer and business protection law—as has been proposed in Vermont and Nebraska. We’ll keep an eye on what happens. Rampant “demand-letter trolling” deserves to be slammed.