About the Authors

  • The Authors and Contributors of "Patent Docs" are patent attorneys and agents, many of whom hold doctorates in a diverse array of disciplines.
2018 Juristant Badge - MBHB_165
Juristat #4 Overall Rank

E-mail Newsletter

  • Enter your e-mail address below to receive the "Patent Docs" e-mail newsletter.

Contact the Docs


  • "Patent Docs" does not contain any legal advice whatsoever. This weblog is for informational purposes only, and its publication does not create an attorney-client relationship. In addition, nothing on "Patent Docs" constitutes a solicitation for business. This weblog is intended primarily for other attorneys. Moreover, "Patent Docs" is the personal weblog of the Authors; it is not edited by the Authors' employers or clients and, as such, no part of this weblog may be so attributed. All posts on "Patent Docs" should be double-checked for their accuracy and current applicability.
Juristat #8 Overall Rank


« District Court Allows Mohawk Tribe to Join ANDA Litigation, Finds Patents at Issue Invalid | Main | Secured Mail Solutions LLC v. Universal Wilde, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2017) »

October 17, 2017


Congratulations on a great analysis, but if you factor in the "take-away$$" of the NPLs....?

It's a change in view - electronics and software users don't see the value of investment or innovation. They assume it will happen because 1 million monkeys in their mothers basement can write all the code needed to accomplish what they want.

I don't think the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) even understands that a patent is different than a copyright, or the scope of protection offered. Beside, they still analyze patents by the abstract, title, or a sound byte, and not the claims.

Programmers continue to argue for the free exchange of software code and ideas without any commercial gain. They use hindsight and unsubstantiated argument, and refuse to acknowledge facts. Unfortunately the patent troll narrative will continue to thrive in this environment.

Dear Michael:

Please expound further (and remember we are just reporting what was published; we have not done an independent analysis, and it is not our position that trolls cause no issues - just that it isn't as horrible or one-sided as the problem has been framed by some).

Hey Kevin,

May be Justice Breyer should read this article from the Financial Times. He certainly spouted the "patent troll" narrative in the oral argument for Cuozzo Speed-that hardly advances the debate on IPRs, but simply inflames it.

Note that the post has been corrected to properly ascribe the troll frequency of 2/3rds of patent cases to the White House under President Obama and not the USPTO under Director Lee.

We regret the error.

The comments to this entry are closed.

May 2024

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30 31