Top Law Schools

im very bearish on patent litigation

for a patent owner, the law has changed dramatically in the last decade and half AGAINST patent owners for two key metrics: a) damages and b) invalidity. more patents than not are shit, pure shit. damages are shit pure shit.

patent damages have dried up so much. they aren't jackpot verdicts anymore. businesses cant really rely on their IP as a big asset anymore. IP is being bought up en masse by big-tech defendants. they have the best patents and so wont sue each other. and they don't do much of the suing. only game left is npe, but cong can crack down on that - courts already have by killing injunctive relief. cant go itc coz no domestic industry. and if you do luck out and get big-time verdict, cafc going to rob it daylight

litigation costs are off the roof. discovery in patent cases is ridiculous. patent cases staffed up the wazoo with teams of associates. experts cost so much. judges dont know how to construe claims. rocket dockets like edtx, screeching brakes by fed cir. takes 3 years to process patent suit in texas now. other jurisdictions are decidedly defense-biased (See california courts); lawsuits tossed out on msj; lawsuits tossed on invalidity on msj; shitty claim constructions

asserting a patent seems like a decision which is getting worse and worse from a biz strategic standpoint. if im a biz, im not investing in "patents" as an asset because it cant be modeled in financial returns terms; im investing in r&d sure enough, but not with intent to patent; and I sure as hell am not buying patents because thats the domain of just a handful of companies.

so.. i say. patent litigation is not a good career choice long-term. maybe transactional work has room. prosecution always stable. but litigation? nah. not a good trend. patents in general are an asset which have unfortunatey contracted a case of the herpes. the kind that don't go away. not in our lifetime.

keep me anon. i clerk and work. looking at other commercial litigation prospects to slide away from the pat-lit bubble. stay general patent lit cohorts, stay general. dont get pigeonholed.

Anonymous User wrote:they have the best patents and so wont sue each other.

Damn, I can't believe the newsmedia just made up all those legal disputes between Apple and Nokia, Apple and Samsung, Microsoft and Android device manufacturers, etc.

bk187 wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:they have the best patents and so wont sue each other.

Damn, I can't believe the newsmedia just made up all those legal disputes between Apple and Nokia, Apple and Samsung, Microsoft and Android device manufacturers, etc.

s'like saying, dayum, the housing market is doing gangbusters, circa 2006. apple, nokie, samsung, msft, google, etc, are transforming into defensive passive players for the next decade or two, they're all rpx cutomers. they're insured baby. the stuff you see on the "news" is litigation without a major transactional precursor. might as well work at howrey.

a majority of patent litigation isnt between big tech companies. so even if there are future bigtech v. bigtech lawsuits, that's the exception not the norm.

Anonymous User wrote:you're naming companies which have now smarted to the game of engaging in patent consortium deals.
the cell phone wars are fine and dandy. they're happening because they didn't have a patent arms exchange precursor.
you're missing bigger picture.

a majority of patent litigation isnt between big tech companies. so even if there are future bigtech v. bigtech lawsuits, that's the exception not the norm.

I wasn't claiming that it makes up a large chunk. Just pointing out that you were being hyperbolic in saying "they won't sue each other."

bk187 wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:you're naming companies which have now smarted to the game of engaging in patent consortium deals.
the cell phone wars are fine and dandy. they're happening because they didn't have a patent arms exchange precursor.
you're missing bigger picture.

a majority of patent litigation isnt between big tech companies. so even if there are future bigtech v. bigtech lawsuits, that's the exception not the norm.

I wasn't claiming that it makes up a large chunk. Just pointing out that you were being hyperbolic in saying "they won't sue each other."

coz they wont. they have been paying pat litigators tons of moolah just like homeowners paid each other tons of dough back in 2006. but they wont go down that path. they'll all have bought insurance from rpx and co. they're all getting savvier with how they handle ip as an asset. moving forward, as big tech becomes more sophisticated with patents, they'll preempt each other.

but the main structural/foundational problems for patents is this: they're not worth much in 2012. they used to be worth a shit ton pre-ksr. ksr wiped out tsm and wiped out a shit ton of value in patents. uniloc gave it another kick in the balls. and the aia gave it another nice kick - square in the nuts.

Anonymous User wrote:

bk187 wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:you're naming companies which have now smarted to the game of engaging in patent consortium deals.
the cell phone wars are fine and dandy. they're happening because they didn't have a patent arms exchange precursor.
you're missing bigger picture.

a majority of patent litigation isnt between big tech companies. so even if there are future bigtech v. bigtech lawsuits, that's the exception not the norm.

I wasn't claiming that it makes up a large chunk. Just pointing out that you were being hyperbolic in saying "they won't sue each other."

coz they wont. they have been paying pat litigators tons of moolah just like homeowners paid each other tons of dough back in 2006. but they wont go down that path. they'll all have bought insurance from rpx and co. they're all getting savvier with how they handle ip as an asset

--ImageRemoved--

OP = Nostradamus

The recently passed AIA has leaves open many questions of interpretation . It is too long for anyone's good, except for the lawyers who will be making money arguing what all of it means.
As the world shrinks (figuratively), international patent litigation will become more and more important. If China/India's patent programs ever get their acts together and they enforce rights, international patent litigation will shoot through the roof.

the thing is litigation cost is expensive in every type of cases, not just IP, and most companies/firms would settle if they could rather go to court. Also, I barely see any IP lit boutique firm. Most well known IP litigators are within firms that have big GP lit dept.

CSB

Litigants will be dropping their IP disputes and flocking to "other commercial litigation prospects" in droves. DROVES I TELL YOU!

Is this like sending stock tips via spam?

r6_philly wrote:Is this like sending stock tips via spam?

Better. OP apparently clerks, so she/he's knowledgable and thus HIGHLY credited. Wonder where breh clerks...CAFC/hot patent docket DC? Obvi.

Big Shrimpin wrote:

r6_philly wrote:Is this like sending stock tips via spam?

Better. OP apparently clerks, so she/he's knowledgable and thus HIGHLY credited. Wonder where breh clerks...CAFC/hot patent docket DC? Obvi.

We need to rush back to UG and earn a second bachelor in liberal arts.

r6_philly wrote:

Big Shrimpin wrote:

r6_philly wrote:Is this like sending stock tips via spam?

Better. OP apparently clerks, so she/he's knowledgable and thus HIGHLY credited. Wonder where breh clerks...CAFC/hot patent docket DC? Obvi.

We need to rush back to UG and earn a second bachelor in liberal arts.

It's funny. People who actually get paid to gauge which legal markets are hot are predicting exactly the opposite of what the OP is predicting:

http://www.bcgsearch.com/newsletter/2011_fall/

Julio_El_Chavo wrote:It's funny. People who actually get paid to gauge which legal markets are hot are predicting exactly the opposite of what the OP is predicting:

http://www.bcgsearch.com/newsletter/2011_fall/

Ya. Exactly like a spam mail stock tip.

OP, why you no poast again to stoke you flame?

Anonymous User wrote:but the main structural/foundational problems for patents is this: they're not worth much in 2012. they used to be worth a shit ton pre-ksr. ksr wiped out tsm and wiped out a shit ton of value in patents. uniloc gave it another kick in the balls. and the aia gave it another nice kick - square in the nuts.

Then how do you explain that litigation has gone up after Ebay, KSR and Uniloc.

http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2012/03 ... -rise.html

Black-Blue wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:but the main structural/foundational problems for patents is this: they're not worth much in 2012. they used to be worth a shit ton pre-ksr. ksr wiped out tsm and wiped out a shit ton of value in patents. uniloc gave it another kick in the balls. and the aia gave it another nice kick - square in the nuts.

Then how do you explain that litigation has gone up after Ebay, KSR and Uniloc.

http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2012/03 ... -rise.html

The rise in filings is largely due to multiple single defendant suits being filed instead of multi defendant suits (due to anti joinder rules in AIA).

Also note that while Uniloc may have hampered damages (not sure it did all that much, though), it also made it easier to make out a direct infringement case when D(s) claim divided infringement.

OP is still nuts, but whatever.

TXIPLitigator wrote:

Black-Blue wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:but the main structural/foundational problems for patents is this: they're not worth much in 2012. they used to be worth a shit ton pre-ksr. ksr wiped out tsm and wiped out a shit ton of value in patents. uniloc gave it another kick in the balls. and the aia gave it another nice kick - square in the nuts.

Then how do you explain that litigation has gone up after Ebay, KSR and Uniloc.

http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2012/03 ... -rise.html

The rise in filings is largely due to multiple single defendant suits being filed instead of multi defendant suits (due to anti joinder rules in AIA).

Also note that while Uniloc may have hampered damages (not sure it did all that much, though), it also made it easier to make out a direct infringement case when D(s) claim divided infringement.

OP is still nuts, but whatever.

Interesting...saw that article this morning.

Big Shrimpin wrote:CSB

Litigants will be dropping their IP disputes and flocking to "other commercial litigation prospects" in droves. DROVES I TELL YOU!

rad lulz wrote:

Big Shrimpin wrote:CSB

Litigants will be dropping their IP disputes and flocking to "other commercial litigation prospects" in droves. DROVES I TELL YOU!

Tyvmft

I disagree with the OP.

As technology becomes increasingly pervasive and infiltrates every industry (law included), intellectual property will be more and more important to companies. Thus, I think you're going to see more IP work (perhaps not necessarily litigation) over the long-term rather than less. That being said, the current IP Litigation boom will end. There will be a slowdown when the smartphone wars end, but there will be new technologies and they'll be hotly contested.

Beyond the technical trends, there are also the legal trends. Congress just passed the AIA (which is the first major piece of patent-related legislation since 1952). New laws means that there need to be new interpretations of the statutes. New interpretations come from new litigation. The AIA is a jobs bill for IP folks.

Another legal trend is that companies are starting to use patents offensively rather than building a patent chest for defensive purposes. This makes sense because patents only give you the power to exclude. Patents can't be used as a defense against an infringement claim. Thus, companies are now selling their patent portfolios to NPEs and giving themselves a license (so they can't be used with their own patents).

Finally, there's an economic trend. We're in a soft economy. In a weak economy, litigation rises because people are fighting over a smaller GDP pie. Companies are looking for ways to goose their earnings and so they're trying to monetize their patent trove. Again, this is a short-term trend and it will come to an end.

Anonymous User wrote: Patents can't be used as a defense against an infringement claim.

Yes, but if you have patents that read on your adversary's technology, you can neutralize the threat. It's called deterrent patenting.

Anonymous User wrote: Thus, companies are now selling their patent portfolios to NPEs and giving themselves a license (so they can't be used with their own patents).

Who is doing this? I'm honestly curious. I've mostly heard about trolls buying patents from bankrupt companies.

Anonymous User wrote: Finally, there's an economic trend. We're in a soft economy.

It doesn't look soft for tech.

Many argue that we're in a patent bubble. They may be right. I'm not really convinced. Or I'm at least not convinced that the bubble will pop so dramatically that IP lit dries up. If there's never any litigation, there's no real incentive to take a license. Licenses are very expensive, and I think (hope) companies will always be pushing the limits, thus spurring litigation.