A shaky future for small entities in patents
A recent study from IP researchers examines the role of patent legislation moving forward for "small entity patent filers" in regards to their new challenges with the U.S. Congress' proposals.
December 19, 2013 at 03:49 AM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Obtaining and asserting patents is a necessity for any business big or small seeking to retain control of its intellectual property, but complications in U.S. patent process — and, in part, the legislation thereof — have made it more difficult for smaller businesses. Those typically larger companies and groups that are linked with consistent and virulent pursuit of preserving their patents — otherwise known as “patent trolls” — seemingly hinder the process of innovation for others. And a recent study from IP researchers examines the role of patent legislation moving forward for “small entity patent filers” in regards to their new challenges with the U.S. Congress' proposals.
The role of the patent troll in effectively blocking small- to medium-sized businesses from obtaining and exercising patents is one that creates difficult IP realities for such companies, but is also excessively aggrandized by the media. Technology companies have been aggressive in the patent spotlight over the last year, particularly big names like Apple and Samsung, for spending too much of their budgets on patent “trolling” litigation instead of research and development. But whether or not the patent trolls are having a real impact on SMBs is still a matter of market research.
The researchers note that “Congress imminently appears to be positioned to pass any legislation to control the so-called 'troll' problem without waiting for any further objective studies on the problem, where the patents so-called 'trolls' come from, or on how small patent entities are weathering Congress' last changes to the patent law, that is the so-called 'America Invents Act.'”
Small entities including universities, research groups, non-profits, and the like will likely have their work cut out for them in the coming years of pending U.S. patent legislation. Thus far it has been a rocky road for SMBs and other companies less-stocked with dependent and fruitful cash flow. If such research pans out, the future gap between the big guys and the small guys for patents will only widen.
Further reading:
Obtaining and asserting patents is a necessity for any business big or small seeking to retain control of its intellectual property, but complications in U.S. patent process — and, in part, the legislation thereof — have made it more difficult for smaller businesses. Those typically larger companies and groups that are linked with consistent and virulent pursuit of preserving their patents — otherwise known as “patent trolls” — seemingly hinder the process of innovation for others. And a recent study from IP researchers examines the role of patent legislation moving forward for “small entity patent filers” in regards to their new challenges with the U.S. Congress' proposals.
The role of the patent troll in effectively blocking small- to medium-sized businesses from obtaining and exercising patents is one that creates difficult IP realities for such companies, but is also excessively aggrandized by the media. Technology companies have been aggressive in the patent spotlight over the last year, particularly big names like
The researchers note that “Congress imminently appears to be positioned to pass any legislation to control the so-called 'troll' problem without waiting for any further objective studies on the problem, where the patents so-called 'trolls' come from, or on how small patent entities are weathering Congress' last changes to the patent law, that is the so-called 'America Invents Act.'”
Small entities including universities, research groups, non-profits, and the like will likely have their work cut out for them in the coming years of pending U.S. patent legislation. Thus far it has been a rocky road for SMBs and other companies less-stocked with dependent and fruitful cash flow. If such research pans out, the future gap between the big guys and the small guys for patents will only widen.
Further reading:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllAfter 2024's Regulatory Tsunami, Financial Services Firms Hope Storm Clouds Break
2024 in Review: Judges Met Out Punishments for Ex-Apple, FDIC, Moody's Legal Leaders
Financial Watchdog Alleges Walmart Forced Army of Gig-Worker Drivers to Receive Pay Through High-Fee Accounts
Trending Stories
- 1Latest Class of Court Officers Sworn into Service in New York
- 2Kirkland's Daniel Lavon-Krein: Staying Ahead of Private Equity Consolidation
- 3Many Southeast Law Firms Planned New, Smaller Offices in 2024
- 4On the Move and After Hours: Goldberg Segalla, Faegre Drinker, Pashman Stein
- 5Recent FTC Cases Against Auto Dealers Suggest Regulators Are Keeping Foot on Accelerator
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250