{"type":"success","html":"
\n\t\t\t\t\tApril 30, 2012 by cpa70<\/a> \t\t\t\t<\/p>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t\t\t By Manny Schecter, IBM Chief Patent Counsel<\/p>\n After a recent respite, plenty has been said in the blogosphere of late in defense of non-practicing entities (NPEs) often referred to derogatorily as patent trolls. Perhaps the renewed discourse<\/a><\/span><\/span> stems from the passage of the America Invents Act<\/a><\/span><\/span> or the smartphone patent wars<\/a><\/span><\/span>. Before the conversation gets too passionate, let\u2019s examine a few facts, which reveal that NPEs still pose serious problems.<\/p>\n Some pundits recently dismissed<\/a><\/span><\/span> the impact of NPEs by noting that the number of patent suits initiated in the US remained flat from 2001 to 2010 and that only about 100 lawsuits actually go to trial each year. The inference is that the impact of NPEs cannot be substantial if patent litigation has not increased. But this is a plateau that was reached after the number of suits doubled to 3,000 annually over the previous decade, according to data from the Administrative Office of the US Courts.<\/p>\n Furthermore, in 2011, the number of patent suits initiated in the US spiked once again \u2013 so the upward trend has apparently renewed<\/a><\/span><\/span>. A snapshot of a carefully chosen time period is simply not a fair assessment, particularly when a broader time period results in a different outcome. In addition, even if the number of suits levels off again, who is to say why or whether the level is acceptable?<\/p>\n And what should we glean from only 100 patent suits actually going to trial per year? Not much. Might the capacity of the federal court system be at play? Should we only concern ourselves with the number of trials? The number of suits is, obviously, far greater than the number of trials. And let\u2019s not forget that the number of disputes (settled out of court) is certainly far greater than the number of suits. So, the impact is far greater than a statistic such as 100 suits per year suggests at first blush.<\/p>\n A narrow view of the total number of patent suits or trials is also not the best perspective of the negative impact that NPEs have on innovation and the economy. Better data is available from Patent Freedom, a community that shares information on NPEs. As the chart below shows, the number of patent suits initiated by operating companies has remained flat in recent years, but spiked up in 2011 in correspondence with the uptick in all patent suits. More significantly, the number of counterparties (defendants plus declaratory judgment plaintiffs) in patent suits involving NPEs has increased at a compound annual growth rate over 30% during the same period. The growth rate is also not uniform throughout the economy \u2013 the growth rate is significantly higher in some industries, such as financial services. NPEs frequently sue multiple defendants in the same suit, something that operating companies typically do not do. Clearly, there is<\/em> something different about NPEs and the way they operate.<\/p>\n Concerns about the significantly increased rate of patent litigation by NPEs led to certain provisions in the America Invents Act, including an enhanced ability to challenge patents without resort to litigation, and an \u201canti-joinder\u201d provision preventing patentees from joining unrelated defendants in the same suit based merely on the infringement of the same patent. These reforms could curb the way NPEs operate.<\/p>\n More data on the impact of trolls may be forthcoming as a result of patent reform legislation. While the AIA was the most extensive patent reform in the US in decades, it simply could not address every NPE behavior that operating companies have expressed concern about – such as shielding the true ownership of patents, assertions of irrelevant patents, strained interpretations of patent claims, and outrageous demands for damages. The AIA requires the Comptroller General of the US to study the consequences of litigation by NPEs. The comptroller\u2019s report is schedule to be issued in September. The results may add greater depth to our understanding of the issue and perhaps even point toward potential solutions.<\/p>\n \n\t\t\t\tPosted in Patents<\/a> | Tagged America Invents Act<\/a>, NPE<\/a>, patents<\/a> | Leave a comment<\/a>\t\t\t<\/p>\n\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t \n\t\t\t\t\tJanuary 18, 2012 by cpa70<\/a> \t\t\t\t<\/p>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t\t\t By Manny W. Schecter<\/strong><\/p>\n Chief Patent Counsel, IBM Corporation<\/strong><\/p>\n The recently-released tally of US Patents awarded in 2011<\/a> gives those who are concerned about America\u2019s global competitiveness plenty to think about. Only two US companies, IBM at No. 1<\/a> and Microsoft at No. 6, appear on the top 10 list. Hewlett-Packard and Intel have dropped off. The rest of the companies in the top 10 are headquartered in Asia.<\/p>\n This news reminds us that we live in a highly competitive, global economy and it is vital that we remain vigilant about preserving and fostering an environment for US companies to innovate. That includes strengthening science, technology, engineering, and math curricula at all levels, investing in fundamental scientific research, making it easier for entrepreneurs to launch and grow their companies, and strengthening our patent system.<\/p>\n There is another message hidden in the rankings<\/a>. The results show that the United States is a magnet for global innovation. Why do foreign companies apply for so many patents here? Simple: The US has balanced intellectual property laws, a fair patent system and a strong rule of law that protects the creative work of inventors.<\/p>\n The recently-enacted America Invents Act (AIA) is the most significant reform to the patent system in 60 years.\u00a0 The AIA improves the fairness of the system and the quality of patents by giving third parties the opportunity to submit information related to a pending application for consideration by the patent examiner and by expanding the ability to challenge existing patents. These reforms will help ensure that patents are issued\u00a0 and enforced only for inventions that are truly novel and deserving of a patent. The Act also harmonizes US patent law with those of other major countries by switching to a first-inventor-to-file system from a first-to invent system. This is important for businesses that must operate in an increasingly global economy and will help speed examination by promoting work sharing between patent offices.<\/p>\n On the judicial front, America\u2019s court system provides patent holders ample opportunities to enforce their patent rights while at the same time providing fairness and balance in the remedies applied. The US Supreme Court decision in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange LLC<\/em> established firm guidance for the lower courts: the balance of hardships between plaintiff and the defendant\u2014and the public interest\u2014must be considered before issuing an injunction preventing the sale of products. In cases where the plaintiff does not use the patented invention in products, lower courts\u2019 application of eBay has resulted in fewer injunctions.\u00a0 As the Federal Trade Commission indicated in its recent Evolving IP Marketplace <\/em>report, the eBay <\/em>decision allows courts a more nuanced analysis that recognizes injunctions may in some situations unnecessarily raise costs and deter innovation.<\/p>\n Reform isn\u2019t a one-time act. It must be continuous in response to changing circumstances. So we applaud US PTO Director David Kappos\u2019s vow to produce what he calls a \u201cNational IP Strategy\u201d this year. He aims to outline the Obama administration\u2019s key IP priorities, its plan to improve patent protection for small businesses and efforts to increase engagement with China on issues of IP enforcement.<\/p>\n It\u2019s a remarkable time for innovation globally. Think of IBM\u2019s Watson<\/a> data management and analytics technology, Samsung\u2019s advances in flat-screen TVs, Apple\u2019s iPad, and Facebook\u2019s social media. The future will be bright, too, and the United States will continue to be a locus for innovation, if American companies and foreign firms alike get world-class protections for their inventions and fairness in resolving competing claims. Government and industries must continue to work together to preserve and strengthen U.S. innovation.<\/p>\n \n\t\t\t\tPosted in Innovation<\/a>, Patent Reform<\/a>, Patents<\/a> | Tagged Innovation<\/a>, innovators<\/a>, invention<\/a>, Patent Reform Act of 2011<\/a>, patents<\/a>, USPTO<\/a> | Leave a comment<\/a>\t\t\t<\/p>\n\n\t\t\t\t\t<\/div>\n\t\t \n\t\t\t\t\tNovember 15, 2011 by cpa70<\/a> \t\t\t\t<\/p>\n\t\t\t<\/div>\n\n\t\t\t During a lecture<\/a> at the Computer History Museum in California earlier this year, IBM CEO Sam Palimisano, observed \u201cTo innovate successfully for a decade or a generation \u2014 much less for a century \u2014 you have to be able to turn discovery into profits.\u201d<\/p>\n This steadfast commitment to innovation has long differentiated IBM from its competitors and positioned the company to rapidly respond to challenges and efficiently capitalize on new business opportunities.<\/p>\n IBM’s innovation leadership is evidenced in its 18 consecutive years of patent leadership<\/a>, five Nobel prize winners, seven U.S. National Medals of Technology, five National Medals of Science and memberships in the National Academy of Sciences.<\/p>\n Another recognition of the company’s role and influence as an innovation leader is its ranking on the Thomson Reuters 2011 Top 100 Global Innovators<\/a> list. Thomson Reuters has honored companies for their ability to invent on a significant scale; are working on developments which are acknowledged as innovative by patent offices around the world, and by their peers; and whose inventions are so important that they seek global protection for them.<\/p>\n According to Thomson Reuters, the Top 100 Global Innovators<\/a> exemplify the essence of innovation and drive inventions for economic growth, which having established systems for vetting inventions and determining which ideas are worthy of protection.<\/p>\n
<\/a><\/p>\n
<\/a><\/p>\nShare this:<\/h3>
Like this:<\/h3>
\n\t\t\t\t\tThe Silver Lining in This Year\u2019s US Patent Rankings<\/a>\n\t\t\t\t<\/h2>\n\t\t\t\t
Share this:<\/h3>
Like this:<\/h3>
\n\t\t\t\t\tIBM Recognized as Top 100 Global Innovator<\/a>\n\t\t\t\t<\/h2>\n\t\t\t\t