INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND IP RIGHTS

*Intellectual Property: Intellectual property (IP) refers to creations of the mind, such as inventions; literary and artistic works; designs;
and symbols, names and images used in commerce.IP is protected in law by, for example, patents, copyright and trademarks, which
enable people to earn recognition or financial benefit from what they invent or create. They allow creators, or owners, of patents,
trademarks or copyrighted works to benefit from their own work or investment in a creation.
*Intellectual Property Rights: Propriety rights over works and inventions granted by law. These rights are outlined in Article 27 of the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which provides for the right to benefit from the protection of moral and material interests
resulting from authorship of scientific, literary or artistic productions.
CATEGORIES OF IP
1. Industrial Property
patents for inventions
trademarks
industrial designs
geographical indications
2. Copyright
Literary works (i.e., novels, poems and plays)
films
music
artistic works (i.e., drawings, paintings
photographs and sculptures)
architectural design
performances by artists
recordings
broadcasting in radio and television programs

PATENT
DEFINITION:
An exclusive right (think: legal monopoly) granted for an INVENTION
SCOPE OF THE TERM INVENTION:
1. A product or process that provides a new way of doing something, or
2. One that offers a new technical solution to a problem
TERM OF PROTECTION:
Typically, 20 years
Patent protection means an invention cannot be commercially made, used, distributed or sold without the patent owners consent. Patent
rights are usually enforced in courts that, in most systems, hold the authority to stop patent infringement. Conversely, a court can also declare a
patent invalid upon a successful challenge by a third party.
RIGHTS OF PATENT HOLDERS:
1. To decide who may or may not use the patented invention for the period during which it is protected. Patent owners may
2. Give permission to, or license, other parties to use their inventions on mutually agreed terms. Owners may also
3. Sell their invention rights to someone else, who then becomes the new owner of the patent.
EFFECT OF EXPIRATION OF A PATENT:
Protection ends and invention passes into the public domain. This is also known as becoming off-patent, meaning the owner no longer holds
exclusive rights to the invention, and it becomes available for commercial exploitation by others.
REQUIREMENTS FOR THE GRANT OF PROTECTION:
1. Invention must be of PRACTICAL USE
2. NOVELTY (i.e., it is NOT part of the body of already existing knowledge in a given field)
3. The must be an INVENTIVE STEP (i.e., a step that could not be deduced by a person with average knowledge of the technical field.)
4. Its subject matter must be PATENTABLE (i.e., not all inventions are automatically patentable. In many countries, scientific theories,
mathematical methods, plant or animal varieties, discoveries of natural substances, commercial methods or methods of medical treatment
(as opposed to medical products) are not generally patentable.
GRANTING AUTHORITIES
National Patent Offices or
Regional Patent Offices that work for a group of countries
i.e., European Patent Office (EPO), African Intellectual Property Organization (OAPI)
PROCESS OF APPLYING FOR PROTECTION:
Applicant requests Protection for an invention in one or more countries, and each country decides whether to offer patent protection within its
borders. The World Intellectual Property Office (WIPO)-administered Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) provides for the filing of a single
international patent application that has the same effect as national applications filed in the designated countries. An applicant seeking protection
may file one application and request protection in as many signatory states as needed.

TRADEMARK
DEFINITION:
A distinctive sign that identifies certain GOODS OR SERVICES produced or provided by an individual or a company. Helps consumers to identify
and purchase a product or service based on whether its specific characteristics and quality as indicated by its unique trademark meet their
needs.
TERM OF PROTECTION:
Can be INDEFINITE, upon successive and continuous renewal of license
EFFECT OF TRADEMARK PROTECTION
Ensures that the owners of marks have the exclusive right to use them to identify goods or services, or to authorize others to use them
in return for payment of fees to the granting authority.
Hinders unfair competitors, such as counterfeiters, to use similar distinctive signs to market inferior or different products or services.
REGISTRABLE MARKS
May be one or a combination of words, letters and numerals
Drawings, Symbols or three-dimensional signs, such as the shape and packaging of goods
Collective marks: owned by an association whose members use them to indicate products with a certain level of quality and who agree
to adhere to specific requirements set by the association
Certification marks: i.e., ISO 900 or eco-friendly marks
EXTENT OF TRADEMARK PROTECTION
Almost all countries in the world register and protect trademarks. Each national or regional office maintains a Register of Trademarks containing
full application information on all registrations and renewals, which facilitates examination, search and potential opposition by third parties. The
effects of the registration are, however, limited to the country (or, in the case of regional registration, countries) concerned.
GOVERNING BODY: World Intellectual Property Office (WIPO)
To avoid the need to register separate applications with each national or regional office, WIPO administers an international registration system for
trademarks.
PROCESS OF REGISTRATION
Application with the appropriate granting authority
Search by the granting authority If no colorable similarity exists with previously-registered marks, and no third person interposes any
objection on the ground of similarity, the protection is granted
REQUISITES FOR THE GRANT OF PROTECTION:
1. Mark must be DISTINCTIVE in and of itself
2. Mark must identify a particular product
3. Mark must not be misleading or deceiving to consumers
4. Mark must not be violative of public order or morality (defined according to national standards)
5. Rights applied for must not be the same as, or similar to, rights already granted to another trademark owner

COPYRIGHT
DEFINITION:
Protection granted to authors, artists and other creators for their LITERARY AND ARTISTIC CREATIONS, generally referred to as works
TERM OF PROTECTION:
Beginning with the creation and fixation of the work, and lasting for not less than 50 years after the creators death. National laws may
establish longer terms of protection.
Related rights enjoy shorter terms, normally 50 years after the performance; recording or broadcast has taken place.
RIGHTS OF A COPYRIGHT HOLDER
To authorize or prohibit a works reproduction in all forms, including print form and sound recording; its public performance and communication
to the public; its broadcasting; its translation into other languages; and its adaptation, such as from a novel to a screenplay for a film.
1. PROPRIETARY RIGHTS
- Economic rights pertaining to profit and compensation for works
2. MORAL RIGHTS
- Right to claim authorship of a work
- Right to oppose changes to the work that could harm the creators reputation
PROCESS OF ACHIEVING PROTECTION:
None. Protection inures to the moment of creation. Copyright and related rights protection is obtained automatically without the need for
registration or other formalities. However, many countries provide for a national system of optional registration and deposit of works (i.e.,
deposit in the national libraries of states).

INDUSTRIAL DESIGN
DEFINITION:
Refers to the ORNAMENTAL OR AESTHETIC ASPECTS OF AN ARTICLE. An industrial design is primarily of an aesthetic nature, and any
technical features of the article to which it is applied are not protected by the design registration. However, those features could be protected by a
patent.
TERM OF PROTECTION:
Generally five years, with the possibility of further renewal, in most cases for a period of up to 10 or 15 years.
Depending on the particular national law and the kind of design, an industrial design may also be protected as a work of applied art
under copyright law, with a much longer term of protection than the standard 10 or 15 years under registered design law.
SCOPE OF THE TERM DESIGN
May consist of three-dimensional features, such as the shape or surface of an article, or two-dimensional features, such as patterns, lines or color
REQUISITES FOR PROTECTION
1. Design must be NEW or ORIGINAL
2. Must be NON-FUNCTIONAL (otherwise it would qualify as an invention)

GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATION
DEFINITION:
A sign used on goods that have a SPECIFIC GEOGRAPHICAL ORIGIN and possess qualities or a reputation due to that place of origin
DISTINGUISHED FROM TRADEMARK:
A trademark is a sign used by a company to distinguish its goods and services from those produced by others. It gives its owner the right to
prevent others from using the trademark. A geographical indication guarantees to consumers that a product was produced in a certain place and
has certain characteristics that are due to that place of production. It may be used by all producers who make products that share certain
qualities in the place designated by a geographical indication.
ENFORCEMENT OF PROTECTION:
Through laws against unfair competition, consumer protection laws, laws for the protection of certification marks or special laws for the protection
of geographical indications or appellations of origin. In essence, unauthorized parties may not use geographical indications if such use is likely to
mislead the public as to the true origin of the product.

STRUCTURES
A. WIPO
The World Intellectual Property Office works as part of the United Nations system of specialized agencies to establish and
harmonize rules and practices for the protection of intellectual property rights. It services global registration systems for
trademarks, industrial designs and appellations of origin, and a global filing system for patents. These systems are under
regular review by WIPOs Member States and other stakeholders to determine how they can be improved to better serve the
needs of users and potential users.
B. UNCITRAL
The United Nations Commission on International Trade Law is the core legal body of the United Nations system in the field of
international trade law. It is a legal body with universal membership specializing in commercial law reform worldwide. It
formulates rules on arbitration and commerce which include:
Conventions, model laws and rules which are acceptable worldwide
Legal and legislative guides and recommendations of practical value
Technical assistance in law reform projects
Regional and national seminars on uniform commercial law
IP and disputes concerning IPR are one of the nine fields over which the UNCITRAL has arbitral power

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND AND THE BIG PICTURE

The US patent system goes back to the nations founding; it is explicitly delineated in the Constitution, which, in the name of
the progress of science and the useful arts, gives Congress the power to grant inventors the exclusive right to their
respective writings and discoveries for a limited timegenerally 20 yearsduring which period competitors are forbidden
from selling similar products. Without those assurances, there would arguably be no incentive to innovate; why invest money
and effort on a breakthrough that anyone could then take and sell? Patents created a business environment that led to such
landmark technologies as the cotton gin, Morse code, the Yale lock, the Xerox machine, the laser, and the Hula Hoop.
But over the years patents became much more than just protection. They were also assets. Inventors who won patents
were free to sell them on the open market, giving the buyer the right to their creations. In theory this was another boon for
innovation; even if original patent holders couldnt maximize the potential of their inventions, they could still turn a tidy profit
by allowing someone else to build on their ideas. But in practice it meant that even people who never invented anything in
their livesa group of lawyers, for instancecould scoop up a bunch of patents and start suing other inventors for infringing
on their intellectual property.
Traditionally, patents could be awarded only to specific technologies, not broad concepts. But during the 1970s, the Patent
Office didnt have the expertise or bandwidth to limn those kinds of distinctions. In the mechanical age, it was relatively easy
to determine when a series of equations crossed the line into patentable invention; you couldnt protect the underlying math,
but you could protect the machines built from it. Software presented a new kind of challenge. It never left the realm of
algorithms; it represented a process, not a physical object. Meanwhile, the industry was exploding, burying the
undermanned Patent Office with a burst of applications. The Supreme Court would eventually provide guidance by declaring
that software processes and business practices could indeed be considered patent-worthy. The overwhelmed Patent Office
seemed to take this as an OK to apply a rubber stamp to thousands of requests, some of them questionable.
The past three decades of wanton patent-granting have created a disastrous environment for innovation. Today its
practically impossible to build anything without violating a patent of some kindand risking a multimillion-dollar
lawsuit for your troubles. Once intended to protect lone inventors, patents now form a kind of shadow tech industry, in
which billions of dollars are spent on amassing huge portfolios. (The New York Times has noted that Apple and Google,
companies that define themselves by innovation, now invest more in patent acquisition and defense than in research and
development.)
Large companies have built their patent stockpiles as a purely defensive measure. They were dissuaded from suing one
another because they knew their target likely had patents that covered similar territory and they could be countersued
quicklythe legal equivalent of mutually assured destruction. Typically theres a cross-license that keeps companies from
having to assert literally 10,000 or 20,000 patents against each other, Google general counsel Kent Walker says.
But that pact has been broken. What operated for years as an uneasy dtente has descended into a Strangelovian shooting
war. The world saw this firsthand in last summers epic court battle between Apple and Samsung, the geek equivalent of the
O. J. Simpson trial. Ostensibly a fight over whether the Korean electronics giant infringed specific Apple smartphone patents,
the lawsuit was more appropriately seen as corporate warfare waged not in the marketplace but through the courtsa
consequence of Steve Jobs vow to go thermonuclear on Googles Android operating system, which powers Samsung phones.

Essentially, the issue revolves around the use and abuse of patents and other intellectual property rights. The current rise
of what has come to be known as Patent Trolling i.e., suing competitors for IPR infringements upon their refusal to enter
into expensive settlements has given rise to a call from many sectors to reform the patent system.
The basic patent troll business model consists of getting a patent, suing a business that can't afford to pay for legal defense,
and then negotiate nuisance settlements.
FIRST PRINCIPLES AND THEIR APPLICATION
Sample Motions:
THW institute reforms that regulate the number of patents that can be held by non-practicing entities (NPEs)
THBT a cap on corporate-held patents should be imposed
THW require corporations to co-invent with independent entrepreneurs as a pre-condition to the granting of patents
THBT compulsory licensing should be the general rule, and no longer the exception
THC patent litigation insurance
THW abolish software patents
PARADIGM 1
GOVERNMENT SHOULD INTERVENE
(CONSERVATIVE)

THE PATENT SYSTEM HAS GONE OUT OF CONTROL

REVERT BACK TO PHYSICAL PATENTS
Almost any business that uses basic technology is a possible
target of non-practicing entities (NPEs), also known as patent
trolls -- the result of a patent system that has done a terrible job
of evaluating software patents and a court system that hasn't
done much better at examining them. An increasing number of
patent owners are taking advantage of weaknesses in the system
to exploit their rights in ways that on net deter, rather than
encourage, the development of new technology.
The equation of market exclusivity for a time and the unlimited
number of ways a patent can be tweaked and applications for it
be amended is causing a catastrophic breakdown of the IP

PARADIGM 2
NO TO BIG GOVERNMENT /
THE MARKET CAN STABELIZE ITSELF
(NEOLIBERAL)
THE PATENT SYSTEM IS NOT BROKEN
Patent disputes are a natural characteristic of a vigorously
competitive industry.
And theyre nothing new: Similar skirmishes have
historically occurred in areas as diverse as sewing machines,
winged flight, agriculture, and telegraph technology. Each
marked the emergence of incredible technological advances, and
each generated similar outcries about the patent system.
Patents Are Healthy for Innovation and the Economy
If anything, patent skirmishes demonstrate the value that
competing companies place on the innovations in their
marketplaces.

system.
The problem has gone beyond the power of individual persons
natural or corporate to fix. Overbroad software patens are
giving rise to patent trolling.
The actors like non-practicing entities (NPEs or patent trolls)
have discovered the loopholes in IP law and are wreaking havoc
on the field of innovation, to the detriment of both inventors and
consumers.
The most frequent offensive use of patents is by NPEs. NPEs do
not make any products, but license their patent portfolios to
operating entities. NPEs come in all types and sizes from the lone
inventor in his garage to multi-billion dollar patent aggregators
and consortiums.

We are actually witnessing fewer patent suits per patent

issued today than the historical average, according to
economic historian Zorina Kahn. The rate of patent litigation was
twice what it is today compared to some decades in the mid-19th
century.
The premise that the growing number of software patents has
caused a corresponding growth in software patent litigation is
questionable. Six of the 10 companies globally with the highest
software revenues are U.S. companies, including the top three. In
other words: The success of the U.S. software industry correlates
with its use of software patents to protect its innovations. If
patent litigation caused by the U.S. patent system stifled
innovation, U.S. software companies would not be the most
successful in the world.

Examples:
Intellectual Ventures, a self-termed invention investment
company and one of the top five holders of U.S. patents. IV
has acquired over 70,000 patents, mostly through
purchases, and makes its money by licensing technology to
operating companies in virtually every technology sector.
Acacia Research, a publicly traded patent licensing
company with 160 different patent portfolios across all
industries. Acacia licenses and enforces through various
subsidiaries.
Rockstar, a patent consortium funded by tech giants Apple,
Microsoft, Sony, Ericsson, and RIM. Rockstar paid $4.5
billion to buy Nortels patent portfolio out of bankruptcy in
2011 and has since begun aggressively enforcing the
patents against Google, Huawei, Samsung, and others in
the handset space.

If an invention is novel, the idea that it should be patentprotected in hardware but not in software makes no sense.

REGULATE THE NUMBER OF PATENTS

PROTECT THE END-USERS

THE NUMBER OF PATENTS IS AN INALIENABLE RIGHT

The permutations for patent holdings are creating a hotbed

for nuisance-value litigation which harm inventors and endusers. These permutations include the unlimited number of

Eliminating patents for software will not enhance innovation or

benefit the economy. Software is also the most easily
appropriated type of intellectual property. Ever since U.S. courts
made it clear that copyright is unavailable to protect their ideas,
developers have sought to protect inventions embodied in their
software via patents. Denying patent protection for software will
cause these developers to look for other ways to protect their IP
investment resulting in code that is less open, less accessible,
and less interoperable

The laws guarantee the inalienable right to property.

The number of patents held by a company makes a business
attractive to investors.

applications that may be filed for virtually unlimited fields and

subject matters, as well as the number of times applicants are
allowed to amend their patent applications claims part. There are
also bare limits to the number of times a company may be sued
on a patent, necessitating an equal number of counter-suits.
Even the fees and damages that are legally demandable are not
set. And when these companies go to court, they must abide by
discovery procedures (i.e., the process of acquiring evidence and
proving it to be admissible in court) which also require them to
spend.
Current legal battles have even extended the domain of the
patent to the realm of e-commerce, with patent-holders
requesting tweaks or follow-ups to their original patents in order
to claim fees and damages for processes allegedly similar to
theirs which are being employed in electronic commerce.
In the wider marketplace, patents arent valued because of the
innovations they might foster. Instead, they are assessed on their
potential to exact tolls on existing companies that have veered
unintentionally into territory covered by the often bloated claims
of the patent holders
Instead of promoting innovation, patents are used as a
weapon to stop it.
Example:
Apple has aggressively sought patents on practically every
conceivable feature it builds into its products, as well as on
some ideas it may never end up implementing. Despite the
claim of its CEO Tim Cook that infringing on IPR is like
stealing from an artist, critics point out that this is not the
equivalent of Picasso protecting his masterpieces. Its more
akin to some artist churning out sketches and storing them
in his atticthen claiming theft when someone unwittingly
paints the same subjects.
The consequences of current patent crises reverberate far beyond
Silicon Valley, straight into end-user wallets and pocketbooks.
When companies are suddenly paying billions of dollars for
patents, consumers ultimately end up paying the tab.

For a small company, the patents and technology it develops are

often its most valuable asset and the incremental cost of adding
additional patents in surrounding areas around critical
technology is relatively low compared to the potential returns
from investors and buyers.
Example:
IBM has successfully advertised the large number of
patents it obtains each year as part of its overall marketing
strategy, taking out full-page ads in major newspapers.
Google and Facebook have recently paid billions to buy
companies like Nest, WhatsApp, and Oculus VR just
because they have interesting technology and intellectual
property.
Patents are treated similarly to any other piece of property: They
can be bought and sold on the open market, and what a patent
holder does with a patent is his business. Just as a homeowner
might decide to purchase a piece of land and not develop it or
permit others to use it, a patent holder may also choose to do
nothing with the patented invention. Alternatively, the patent
holder might authorize someone else to utilize his patented
invention; license it to others for their use; or hold on to the
patent as an investment until he decides to sell it (or it expires).
Patent rights the exclusive ability to sell an invention for a
period of years provide powerful financial incentives to
companies to research and develop technologies that benefit
society
The real problem lies not in the artificial negative significance
attached to the numbers, but in who holds the patents and how
they are used.
Market-oriented alternatives such as co-invention with other
entrepreneurs, cross-licensing and patent infringement
insurance are better solutions than an all-out ceiling on patent
holdings, which serves little purpose and only incentivizes more
aggressive circumvention of the law.

But money is only part of the impact on consumers. What cant

be measured are the products that are never builtbecause
taking on even bogus patents is too much of a hurdle for some
innovators.

Example, patent insurance:

RPX (Rational Patent Exchange) Corporation, a
provider of patent risk management solutions, has
introduced a new insurance service for businesses facing
patent infringement litigation with patent trolls. RPX's new
solution focuses on the underlying causes of patent troll
risk. Through market intervention, RPX reduces risk by
acquiring patents before patent trolls can assert them
against its network of 168 clients. This acquisition activity
has led to companies in the RPX network receiving more
than 430 dismissals from over 60 litigations. Using the data
from this acquisition activity to drive its actuarial model and
underwriting methodology, RPX can model patent risk for
policyholders and offer effective risk transfer.
ANOTHER MARKET-ORIENTED SOLUTION:
BUILD AN OFFENSIVE/DEFENSIVE IP PORTFOLIO
It behooves companies and inventors to protect themselves from
exploitation, and this can be done by building a well-rounded IP
portfolio that is self-perpetuating and protects core technology as
well as defends against competitors.
A basic offensive strategy protects a business core technology
and drives profits. Meanwhile, a defensive-minded strategy looks
to capture unclaimed territory surrounding core technology by
patenting incremental improvements, which builds value, blocks
alternative designs, ensures freedom to operate, and shields
against attacks by competitors.
The offensive and defensive IP strategies are not mutually
exclusive many assets within the IP portfolio can be used both
offensively and defensively. The problem is that companies do not
undertake the work needed to build their portfolios (thereby
making themselves prime targets for trolling) and later on
complain that the government should do something about the
effects of the complacency or negligence.
Example:

Texas Instruments is famous for successfully licensing its

vast patent portfolios. Once the largest semiconductor maker in

the world, TI lost market share to rivals in the 1980s. In

response, TI began supplementing its declining operating
revenues by aggressively asserting its patent portfolio and
licensing key technologies to competitors. The strategy paid off. TI
was able to capture billions of dollars in licensing revenues while
transitioning its research and development toward new
technologies.
Good portfolio management requires monitoring of the
competitions patent holdings to identify opportunities and
threats. For example, a company may be able to design around a
competitors patents or initiate a reexamination proceeding
against an overly-broad patent. This can be an aggressive
alternative to waiting for litigation. In addition, due to the speed
with which many companies must develop and move a product to
market, those products may contain one or more elements that
infringe a patent within your portfolio.
More often than not, the actors claiming to be damaged could
themselves reverse such damages by targeted changes in their
own strategies.
LEGISLATION IS NEEDED TO CURB THE ABUSE

CONGRESS DOESNT NEED TO ENACT NEW LAWS

Trolling is a multibillion-dollar industrybecause the current

legal standards favor it. It costs a few thousand dollars to secure
a patent, which can easily bring millions through litigation. The
rise of trolls came as a result of a system that seemed to
favor them every step of the way. The vagueness of the
underlying patents, the ridiculous ease with which plaintiffs
could file a suit, the high costs defendants faced, and the
unthinkable consequences of losingall created an environment
in which trolls were routinely rewarded for filing frivolous suits.

While patent law aims to promote innovation by giving inventors

the exclusive right to their inventions, modern patent law pays
far less attention to what the patentee actually invented than to
what the patent claims. Such claims are the legal definition of
the patents scope, and the lawyers drafting them have a natural
tendency to broaden claims as much as possible to secure the
strongest possible rights for clients. This kind of functional overclaiming is whats causing the mess.

There is a need to actively curb abusive behavior in patent

litigation and IP portfolio management, and the best way to do
this is to enact legislative safeguards.
Examples
proposed US patent reform bill (03 April 2014)
S. 1720, the Patent Transparency and Improvements Act

Congress doesnt need to enact new laws; it just needs to

interpret the existing statute given the realities of software and
modern patent practice. The law should rein in efforts to claim
owning a goal itself rather than a particular means of
achieving that goal. If an inventor claims to own any means of
using a computer to solve a problem, we should read that claim
as being limited to the particular algorithm s/he wrote to solve
the problem and ones like it. Didnt write an algorithm (or code)?

which looks at end-user protections and adds higher

standards for patent demand letters and authorizes the
Federal Trade Commission to crack down on unreasonable
demands
The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EEF) proposes
points for better reform such as: limiting overbroad
functional claims in the application for patents, reviewing all
business method patents, especially software-type patents,
requiring more details in complaints about alleged
infringement in patents

Patent quality the scope of patents is at the heart of the

patent troll issue. Standards should be enacted in order to
properly define the limits of patent holdings and the process of
applying for patents.
It is the granting of overbroad and vague software patents that is
spawning the rising number of cases concerning IP infringement.

Then its an invalid patent.

All we need to do is recognize that the structure of a modern
software program is not a computer the hardware on which it
runs but the actual design of the program itself. If someone
invents a program, s/he can own that program and ones like
it, but not every program that might achieve the same
end. While doing so would narrow the scope of software patents
(unfairly in a few cases), the social benefits would outweigh those
concerns.
Ending functional claiming may be the only way out of the
software patent morass. As long as patentees can claim to own
the problem itself not just the solution defining better
boundaries and invalidating obvious patents wont do much
to make the patent mess go away.
With one fell swoop without changing the patent statute and
without invalidating existing patents this may be able to solve
most of the software patent problems.

DEMOGRAPHICS AND STATISTICS

It takes on average 12 years to bring a new product to market from invention to the consumer
Only 1 in 5,000 products successfully makes it to market
The average cost for research and development per product, in the case of pharmaceutical products, is over $1 billion
The volume of NPE patent suits over the past five years increased nearly 600 percent, from about 600 in 2008 to more than
3,600 in 2013, impacting about 8,000 companies in the same period
Patent litigation is costing companies worldwide almost $13 billion in defense expenses and settlements last year (2013), up
from roughly $5 billion in 2008.
Cost of Facebooks acquisition of Oculus VR: $2 Billion, officially making it the third most expensive acquisition of technology
by Facebook, after WhatsApp and Instagram
For 2011 alone, the US International Trade Commission (ITC) reached a peak of 69 cases regarding disputes over technology
relating to smart televisions and smartphones
In the initial suit, Apple claimed that Samsung infringed on five patents it held for the iPhone, and asked for a total of $2.2
billion in damages. Samsung wants over $6 million from Apple for infringing two of its patents.
Typically theres a cross-license that keeps companies from having to assert literally 10,000 or 20,000 patents against each
other, according to Google general counsel Kent Walker.

 In 2011 NPEs brought 5,842 suits, with a direct cost of $29 billion in legal and settlement feesmore than four times the haul
in 2005.
According to Manny Schecter, chief patent counsel at IBM, 75 percent of a companys value is attributable to its intellectual
property
IP-intensive industries contribute $5 trillion per year to the U.S. economy. These industries account for about 35 percent of
gross domestic product and 40 million jobs, including 28 percent of the jobs in the United States.
PATENT WARS, A BRIEF HISTORY
1997

1999

2004

2009

2010

2011

2012

Communications
software
company
Hilgraeve alleges
that McAfees
VirusScan
infringes a
patent on
software that
performs in
transit detection
of computer
viruses. The
district court
sides with
McAfee, but an
appeals court
reverses the
summary
judgment. A few
years later,
Symantec
acquires the
patent and uses
it against
Computer
Associates
International
(now CA
Technologies).

Amazon obtains
a preliminary
court injunction
to stop Barnes &
Noble from using
a single-click
order button,
thanks to its
patent that
covers the
system that
stores billing and
shipping
information. In
2002 the two
reach a
settlement for an
undisclosed
dollar amount.

Eastman Kodak
brings suit
against Sony for
allegedly
encroaching on
10 patents
concerning
digital cameras
and camcorders.
Three weeks
later, Sony
returns the favor
with a lawsuit
against Kodak
that cites 10
different patents.
In 2007 the two
companies reach
a cross-licensing
agreement to
protect their
patent portfolios.

Nokia claims the

iPhone violates
several of its
patents for
wireless
communication,
including one for
bidirectional
transmission of
packet data.
Under the terms
of a 2011
settlement, Apple
pays a onetime
sum and ongoing
royalties to
Nokia.

Oracle, which
gained
ownership of
several Javarelated patents
when it
purchased Sun
Microsystems in
2009, sues
Google for
unauthorized
use of the
development
technology in
Android. A jury
rejects the claim.

A series of AppleSamsung
lawsuits
commence, as
the two
smartphone
giants square off
in courts around
the world. In
August 2012 a
US jury orders
Samsung to shell
out $1 billion for
features that
infringe on six of
Apples patents.

Facebook refuses
to pay licensing
fees to Yahoo for
allowing users to
customize their
pages. Yahoo
files suit against
the social
network for free
riding on its
patents.
Facebook
manages to avoid
a payout, as the
two companies
agree to crosslicensing.

Sources
World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO)
http://www.wipo.int/about-ip/en/
Sci.Dev.Net
http://www.scidev.net/asia-pacific/enterprise/intellectual-property/?gclid=COmn0rigob4CFZcjvQod8JQAeA
The World Trade Organization (re: TRIPS)
http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/intel1_e.htm
The Permanent Court of Arbitration (re: UNCITRAL)
http://www.pca-cpa.org/showpage.asp?pag_id=1061
UNCITRAL
http://www.uncitral.org/uncitral/en/about_us.html
WIRED (opinions on patents)
http://www.wired.com/2012/10/mark-lemley-functional-claiming/
http://www.wired.com/2012/11/richard-stallman-software-patents/
http://www.wired.com/2012/11/with-all-due-respect-the-patent-system-is-not-broken/
Inside Counsel
http://www.insidecounsel.com/2014/04/14/apple-samsung-feud-delves-into-the-origins-of-touc
http://www.insidecounsel.com/2014/04/03/senate-urged-to-improve-proposal-on-patent-reform
http://www.insidecounsel.com/2014/04/17/rpx-launches-a-rated-patent-troll-insurance-with-l
http://www.insidecounsel.com/2014/05/06/oculus-comes-back-at-zenimax-for-ip-violation-clai
http://www.insidecounsel.com/2014/05/05/apple-wins-120-million-in-samsung-patent-case
The Hill (on patent reform in the US)
http://thehill.com/policy/technology/204518-this-week-in-tech-senators-seek-breakthrough-on-patentreform?_ga=1.122661451.1126613107.1399731286
http://thehill.com/policy/technology/202632-apple-microsoft-ibm-team-up-for-patent-protections
http://thehill.com/policy/technology/191530-law-professors-lobby-for-patent-reform
Quartz (on Amazon and its patent for taking photos against a white background)
http://qz.com/207512/taking-a-photo-against-a-white-background-amazon-owns-the-patent-on-that/
The Wall Street Journal (on patent litigation insurance)
http://online.wsj.com/article/PR-CO-20140416-907253.html