Typology of the Patent Troll Business

Pohlmann, Tim and Opitz, Marieke (2010): Typology of the Patent Troll Business. Published in: R&D Management , Vol. 43, No. 2 (2013): pp. 103-120.

Abstract

Patent trolls have many faces, since the media uses this expression in various ways. The patent troll phenomenon thus seems to be an ambiguous term that is discussed in several directions. This paper reveals that a patent troll as such has no distinct shape or appearance. Our analysis redeems a troll classification solely from firms’ market position, such as being non-practicing, and shows that a patent troll business can only be defined by the respective practice to enforce IPR. Using 10 case studies, of which five are treated in detail, the analysis reveals a distinct typology of IPR enforcement mechanisms and suggests a framework to assess the troll business. This paper is furthermore able to identify the nature of troll behavior to be: a) a best practice to enforce IP rights in terms of innovation activities and b) a strategy that may create costs for affected industries. The differentiated troll analysis reveals negative but also positive effects of the troll business on incentives to innovate.

• Item Type: MPRA Paper
• Language: English
• Keywords: Patent Trolls, Patent Sharks, Patent Strategies, Patent Failure
• Subjects: O - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth > O3 - Innovation ; Research and Development ; Technological Change ; Intellectual Property Rights > O34 - Intellectual Property and Intellectual Capital; K - Law and Economics > K0 - General > K00 - General; M - Business Administration and Business Economics ; Marketing ; Accounting ; Personnel Economics > M1 - Business Administration > M10 - General

References

ANN, C. (2009): “Patent Trolls – Menace or Myth?”, in Patents and Technological Progress in a Globalized World MPI Studies on Intellectual Property, Competition and Tax Law, 2009, Volume 6, 6, 355-364.

BALL, G.; KESAN, J. P. (2009): Transaction Costs and Trolls: Strategic Behavior by Individual Inventors, Small Firms and Entrepreneurs in Patent Litigation, U Illinois Law & Economics Research Paper No. LE09-005, Illinois Public Law Research Paper No. 08-21.

BARON, J., POHLMANN, T. (2011): “Patent Pools and Patent Inflation”, Conference Proceedings: 4th ZEW Conference on the Economics of Innovation and Patenting.

BESSEN J., MEURER, M.J. (2008): Patent Failure, Princeton University Press, New Jersey.

BUCHANAN, J.M. (2006): Deference Overcome: Courts' Invalidation of Patent Claims as Anticipated by Art Considered by the PTO, Stanford Technology Law Review 2.

BENSEN S. M., Levinson R. J. (2009): STANDARDS, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY DISCLOSURE, AND PATENT ROYALTIES AFTER RAMBUS, NORTH CAROLINA JOURNAL OF LAW & TECHNOLOGY VOLUME 10, ISSUE 2: SPRING 2009.

CHIEN, C.V. (2009): Of Trolls, Davids, Goliaths, and Kings: Narratives and Evidence in the Litigation of High-Tech Patents. North Carolina Law Review, Vol. 87, 2009.

CRESWELL J.W. (1994): Research Design. Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

DEVLIN, A. (2009): STANDARD-SETTING AND THE FAILURE OF PRICE COMPETITION, New York University Annual Survey of American Law, Vol. 65, p. 217, 2009.

DIESSEL, B.H. (2007): Trolling for Trolls: The Pitfalls of the Emerging Market Competition Requirement for Permanent Injunctions in Patent Cases Post-EBAY, Michigan Law Review, Vol. 106:305.

EDISON, T. (1898): Interview in Scientific American 78 (2): 19.

FISCHER, T.; HENKEL, J. (2009): Patent Trolls on Markets for Technology – An Empirical Analysis of Trolls’ Patent Acquisitions, Proceedings of the TIM Division Academy of Management Meeting 2010.

GERADIN, D., LAYNE-FARRAR, A.; PADILLA, J. (2011): Elves or Trolls? The role of nonpracticing patent owners in the innovation economy, Industrial and Corporate Change, pp. 1–22.

GOLDEN, J.M. (2007): “Patent Trolls” and patent remedies. Texas Law Review Vol. 85, p. 2111-2161.

HOVENKAMP, H. J. (2008): Patent Continuations, Patent Deception, and Standard Setting: the Rambus and Broadcom decisions, working paper.

HENKEL, J.; REITZIG, M. (2007): Patent sharks and the sustainability of value destruction strategies, working paper series.

HENKEL, J.; REITZIG, M. (2008): Patent Sharks, Harvard Business Review.

LAYNE-FARRAR, A., SCHMIDT K.M. (2010): LICENSING COMPLEMENTARY PATENTS: "PATENT TROLLS," MARKET STRUCTURE, AND "EXCESSIVE" ROYALTIES, BERKELEY TECHNOLOGY LAW JOURNAL, Vol. 25, 1121-1143.

LEMLEY, M. (2007): Are Universities Patent Trolls?, Stanford Public Law Working Paper No. 980776.

LEMLEY, M.; SHAPIRO, C. (2007): Patent holdup and royalty stacking, Texas Law Review Vol. 85, p.1991-2048.

LERNER, J. (2006): Trolls on State Street? The Litigation of Financial Patents, Working Paper p.1976-2005.

LUMAN, J. F., DODSON, C. L. (2006): No Longer a Myth, the Emergence of the Patent Troll: Stifling Innovation, Increasing Litigation, and Extorting Billions, Intellectual Property & Technology Law Journal, Volume 18 • Number 5 • May 2006.

LEVKO, A.; BARRY, C.; TORRES, V.; MARVIN R. (2009): A Closer Look: Patent litigation trends and the increasing impact of non-practicing entities, PWC Patent Litigation Study.

MAGLIOCCA, G. (2007): Blackberries and barnyards: Patent trolls and the perils of innovation, Notre Dame Law Review Vol. 82(5), p.1809-1838.

MCDONOUGH III, J. (2006): The Myth of the patent troll: An alternative view of the function of patent dealers in an idea economy, Emory LJ, 2006 - HeinOnline.

MILES, M.B.; HUBERMANN, A.M. (1994): Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

OHLY, A. (2008): „Patenttrolle“ oder: Der patentrechtliche Unterlassungsanspruch unter Verhältnismäßigkeitsvorbehalt? – Aktuelle Entwicklungen im US-Patentrecht und ihre Bedeutung für das deutsche und europäische Patentsystem, in: GRUR Int, Heft 10, S. 787-798.

POHLMANN, T. BLIND, K. (2010): Firms’ cooperative activities as driving factors of patent declaration on technological standards, Conference Proceedings: EMAEE 2011, 7th European Meeting on Applied Evolutionary Economics, Pisa.

MERGERS, R.P. (2009): The Trouble With Patent Trolls. Innovation, Rent Seeking and Patent Law Reform, Berkley Technology Law Journal Vol. 24:4, 1584-1614.

NIRO, R. P., GREENSPOON, R. P. (2007): “Are Patent Trolls Really Undermining the Patent System?”, The Licensing Journal June/July 2007, 8-14.

REITZIG, M.; HENKEL, J.; HEATH, C. (2007): On Sharks, Trolls, and Their Patent Prey - Unrealistic damage awards and firms’ strategies of "being infringed", Research Policy 36, 134-154.

REITZIG, M.; HENKEL, J.; SCHNEIDER, F: (2011):“ Collateral damage for R&D manufacturers: how patent sharks operate in markets for technology”, Industrial and Corporate Change, Volume 19, Number 3, pp. 947–96.

RUBIN, S. (2007): Defending the Patent Troll: Why These Allegedly Nefarious Companies Are Actually Beneficial to Innovation, The Journal of Private Equity, Fall 2007.

RYSMAN, M., SIMCOE, T. (2007): A NAASTy Alternative to RAND Pricing Commitments, working paper.

SAG, M; ROHDE, K.(2006): Patent Reform and Differential Impact, Bepress Legal Series, 2006.

SHAPIRO, C. (2001): Navigating the Patent Thicket: Cross Licenses, Patent Pools, and Standard-Setting, working paper. In: A Jaffe, J Lerner et S, Stern (Eds), Innovation Policy and the Economy, vol. 1. MIT Press.

SHRESTHA, S. (2010): Trolls or Market-Makers? An Empirical Analysis of Non-practicing Entities, Columbia Law Review Vol. 110.

STAKE, R.E (1995): The art of case study research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

STEINER, T., GUTH, S. (2005):”Beware Patent Trolls“, Management Quarterly Fall 2005, 38-51.

SALANT, J. (2007): Formulas for fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory royalty determination, Conference Proceedings Standardization and Innovation in Information Technology, SIIT 2007.

SCHMALENSEE, R., (2009): STANDARD-SETTING, INNOVATION SPECIALISTS AND COMPETITION POLICY, THE JOURNAL OF INDUSTRIAL ECONOMICS, Volume LVII, No. 3, 526-552.

TARANTINO, E. (2010): A Model of Technology Adoption in Standard Setting Organization, Conference Proceedings INTERTIC Conference on Competition in High Tech Markets, Milan 2010.

U.S. FEDERAL TRADE COMISSION (2003): To Promote Innovation: The Proper Balance of Competition and Patent Law and Policy, A Report by the Federal Trade Commission. WALSHAM, G. 1993. Interpreting information systems in organizations. Chichester, UK: JohnWiley.