4

I am searching for few patent cases where a patent troll lost the case. My list includes cases which ended in one of the following ways -

  1. Defendant wasn't infringing the patent(s)
  2. Patent of patent troll got invalidated
  3. Patent troll dropped the case due to whatever reason.

Here's an example case -

A troll, WiLAN, filed a patent case against Apple in 2011. Apple won the case by successfully proving that Apple's product do not infringe the said patent.

Another patent holding company, Bascom Research LLC, sued Facebook and LinkedIn over an obvious concept of "Documenting objects". Facebook & LinkedIn successfully argued about the validity of Bascom's patents. The case ended in favour of these tech giants and Bascom's patents were invalidated.

I will be really grateful if you can help me find these type of cases. My purpose is to find few key points about how a company won against a patent troll.

Please don't bother too much, you can just tell me the involved party names or even just a link to the article published about the case.

Thanks,

  • 2
    At the risk of being obtuse, can you provide your preferred definition of patent troll. Because it's somewhat of a continuum, and one person's patent troll is another's legitimate utiliser of patent rights. – Maca Apr 11 '16 at 10:36
  • Here I'm considering those NPEs who just acquire patents on a technology and never manufacture or serve any product on that. Their sole intention behind acquiring patents is to sue other companies to earn royalties. Pretty much the most common definition of a patent troll. – Shabaz Khan Apr 12 '16 at 10:27
1
+50

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/03/appeals-court-throws-out-six-intellectual-ventures-do-it-on-a-computer-patents/

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140421/07070326977/intellectual-ventures-big-case-shut-down-judge-over-completely-bogus-patents.shtml

and probably a few more of the search results for:

https://www.google.de/search?client=firefox-b-ab&dcr=0&ei=3DkbWpK4CNKVkwXQsK_wDg&q=intellectual+ventures+lost+case&oq=intellectual+ventures+lost+case&gs_l=psy-ab.3..33i160k1.10624.14715.0.14844.31.31.0.0.0.0.115.2731.22j9.31.0..3..0...1.1.64.psy-ab..0.31.2720...0j0i131k1j0i67k1j35i39k1j0i203k1j33i21k1.0.Z_4sFM1E92s

Which brings me to the main point of this rather short answer:

https://www.ipcheckups.com/blog/a-list-of-some-npes/#acacia

Take the names there, google them, find the cases. The list of companies is huge, you should find hundreds of lost cases. If you have access to a database that lets you search for court cases with a company name it should be easier.

  • Thanks! This will work. Also, Intellectual Ventures is not longer considered a troll since they started funding inventors for their ideas but, the lawsuits still counts. Thanks for your references and the idea about finding more. – Shabaz Khan Nov 27 '17 at 8:59
  • @ShabazKhan I still consider them a troll ;) I guess it differs if you're an inventor or AT&T – DonQuiKong Nov 27 '17 at 18:38
2

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/09/scan-to-e-mail-patent-troll-loses-appeal-cant-avoid-state-court-case/

How about this one?

And: "Uniloc, perhaps best known as Patent Troll in Chief, suffered a pretty devastating blow ... The Patent Trademark and Appeals Board has ruled that Uniloc's patent number 5,490,216 is invalid via an inter partes review (IPR). Essentially an IPR is a way for inventors to challenge a patent without getting federal courts involved. ..." Patent Troll Defeated

Here is a scientific article that developed an algorithm for defeating patent trolls in the 3D printing space, perhaps you can get some ideas here:--- A novel approach to obviousness: An algorithm for identifying prior art concerning 3-D printing materials

  • Exactly like this one. Thanks. Hopefully I could find more of such cases. – Shabaz Khan Nov 20 '17 at 8:04

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.