Edit filter log

''''Patent troll''' is a [[pejorative|pejorative term]] used for a person or company that enforces its [[patent]]s against one or more alleged [[patent infringement|infringers]] in a manner considered unduly aggressive or opportunistic, often with no intention to manufacture or market the patented [[invention]]. The term '''patent pirate''' is occasionally used to refer to the same practice.<ref>Craig Tyler, [http://www.wsgr.com/news/PDFs/09202004_patentpirates.pdf ''Patent Pirates Search For Texas Treasure''], Texas Lawyer, September 20, 2004</ref> Related, less pejorative expressions are '''non-practicing entity''' (NPE),<ref name="miranda"/> '''non-manufacturing patentee''',<ref name="white">Katherine E. White, [http://justice.syr.edu/sstlr/wp-content/uploads/preserving-the-patent-process-to-incentivize-innovation-in-t.pdf ''Preserving the Patent Process to Incentivize Innovation in Global Economy''], 13 Syracuse Sci. & Tech. L. Rep. 27 (2006).</ref><ref>Or non-manufacturing entity.</ref> '''patent marketer''',<ref name="white"/><ref name="graf">Susan Walmsley Graf, [http://www.lclark.edu/org/lclr/objects/LCB_11_2_Graf.pdf ''Improving Patent Quality Through Identification of Relevant Prior Art: Approaches to Increase Information Flow to the Patent Office''], 11 Lewis & Clark L. Rev. 495 (2007), footnote 8.</ref> and '''patent dealer''',<ref name="The Myth of the Patent Troll">{{cite web|url=http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=959945|title=The Myth of the Patent Troll: An Alternative View of the Function of Patent Dealers in an Idea Economy|publisher= Emory Law Journal|urle=http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=959945|accessdate = 2007-07-27|year=2007|author=JAMES F. MCDONOUGH III}}</ref> which describe a patent owner who does not manufacture or use the patented [[invention]].<ref name="miranda">Jones, Miranda. Casenote. [http://www.law.gmu.edu/assets/subsites/gmulawreview/files/14-4/documents/7Jones.pdf Permanent injunction, a remedy by any other name is patently not the same: how eBay v. MercExchange affects the patent right of non-practicing entities] ([[eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C.|eBay v. MercExchange, L.L.C.]], 126 S. Ct. 1837, 2006.) 14 [[Geo. Mason L. Rev.]] 1035-1070 (2007)</ref> ==Etymology and definition== The term "patent [[troll]]" was used as early as 1993 to describe companies that file aggressive patent lawsuits.<ref name="wordspy"/> The Patent Troll was originally depicted in "The Patents Video" which was released in 1994 and sold to corporations, universities and governmental entities. In "The Patents Video," an unsuspecting victim is surprised by the Patent Troll who strategically positions himself to collect patent licensing revenue.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.iptoday.com/news-article.asp?id=372&type=ip|title=''The Original Patent Troll Returns'' |publisher=Intellectual Property Today|date=May 8, 2007}}</ref> The metaphor was popularized in 2001 by [[Peter Detkin]], former assistant [[general counsel]] of [[Intel]],<ref name="TrollDollar">{{cite news | author=Brenda Sandburg|title=You may not have a choice; Trolling for Dollars|publisher=The Recorder|date=July 30, 2001|url=http://www.phonetel.com/pdfs/LWTrolls.pdf|format=PDF}}</ref> who first used it to describe [[TechSearch]], its CEO, Anthony O. Brown, and their lawyer, [[Raymond Niro]], while Intel was defending a patent suit against them.<ref>[http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1153299926232 Meet the Original Patent Troll], IP Law & Business (via law.com), July 20, 2006</ref> Detkin had previously used the term "patent extortionist" to refer to a number of companies who were suing Intel for patent infringement and who were trying to "make a lot of money off a patent that they are not practicing and have no intention of practicing and in most cases never practiced."<ref name="TrollDollar" /> After Intel was sued for libel, he came up with the term "patent troll" instead.<ref name="TrollDollar" /> Those accused of being patent trolls typically viewed Intel as being a large and manipulative company who had stolen their ideas.<ref name="TrollDollar" /> By 2005, Detkin believed that the term was being used more broadly than he had originally intended to mean any unpopular plaintiff.<ref name="become">{{cite web|date=December 5, 2005|accessdate = 2007-07-27|publisher=Ziff Davis|url=http://www.cioinsight.com/article2/0,1540,1902291,00.asp|author=R.G.|title=Has the Enemy of Patent Trolls Become One}}</ref> Some definitions could be applied to Intel themselves, contrary to Detkin's intention, in view of their routine practice of asserting patents that they had bought but were not practicing.<ref name="become" /> Patent troll is currently a controversial term, susceptible to numerous definitions, none of which are considered satisfactory from the perspective of understanding how patent trolls should be treated in law.<ref>{{Cite news | last =Subramanian | first =Sujitha | year =2008 | title =Patent Trolls in Thickets: Who is Fishing Under the Bridge? | periodical =European Intellectual Property Review | publisher =Sweet & Maxwell | volume =[2008] | issue =5 | pages =182–188 | postscript =<!--None-->}} </ref> Definitions include a party that does one or more of the following: * Purchases a patent, often from a [[bankruptcy|bankrupt]] firm, and then [[lawsuit|sues]] another company by claiming that one of its products infringes on the purchased patent;<ref name="wordspy">{{cite web|url=http://www.wordspy.com/words/patenttroll.asp|title=patent troll|publisher=wordspy|accessdate = 2007-07-26}}</ref> * Enforces patents against purported infringers without itself intending to manufacture the patented product or supply the patented service;<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.ipfrontline.com/depts/article.asp?id=10854&deptid=4 |title=''On 'Patent Trolls' and Injunctive Relief'' |author=Alexander Poltorak}}, ipfrontline.com, May 12, 2006</ref><ref>{{cite web | url=http://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponet.nsf/0/63A726D28B589B5BC12572DB00597683/$File/EPO_scenarios_bookmarked.pdf| title=EPO Scenarios for the Future, 2005, Glossary|publisher=European Patent Office|accessdate = 2007-07-27|format=PDF}}</ref> * Enforces patents but has no manufacturing or research base;<ref>Morag Macdonald, {{cite web|url=http://www.thelawyer.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=116783&d=122&h=24&f=46|title=''Beware of the troll''|publisher=The Lawyer|date= September 26, 2005|accessdate = 2007-07-27}}</ref> * Focuses its efforts solely on enforcing patent rights;<ref name="Williams, Gardner">{{cite journal|publisher=North Carolina Bar Association, Intellectual Property Law Section|date=April 3, 2006|title = Basic Framework for Effective Responses to Patent Trolls,|author=Danielle Williams and Steven Gardner|url=http://www.kilpatrickstockton.com/publications/downloads/IPLinksApril2006.pdf|format=PDF}}</ref> or * Asserts patent infringement claims against non-copiers or against a large industry that is composed of non-copiers.<ref>[http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2009/03/what-is-a-troll-patent-and-why-are-they-bad.html What is a troll patent and why are they bad?], By TJ Chiang (Professor at George Mason Law School), March 6, 2009</ref> ==Causes== Patent trolls may buy patents cheaply from entities not actively seeking to enforce them. For example, a company may purchase hundreds of patents from a technology company forced by [[bankruptcy]] to [[auction]] its patents.<ref name="auctions"/> The cost of defending against a patent infringement suit, as of 2004, is typically $1 million or more before trial, and $2.5 million for a complete defense, even if successful.<ref name="pirates"/> Because the costs and risks are high, [[defendant]]s may settle even non-meritorious suits they consider [[Frivolous litigation|frivolous]] for several hundred thousand dollars.<ref name="pirates"/> The uncertainty and unpredictability of the outcome of [[jury trial]]s also encourages settlement.<ref name="patworldJune2007">{{cite news | publisher=Patent World|date=June 2007 | title=Waiting for Godot|author=Justin Watts}}</ref> It has also been suggested that distortions in the patent market, such as those caused by long patent application pendency, promote patent trolling.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.iam-magazine.com/blog/Detail.aspx?g=e84ef872-f9b9-448c-bbd4-0bdce2de184f |title=Mutual recognition raises its head as EPO boss says backlog won't be mastered |publisher=Intellectual Asset Management Magazine |author=Joff Wild |date=2008-05-08 |accessdate=2008-06-19}}</ref> ==Effects== A core criticism of patent trolls is that "they are in a position to negotiate [[license|licensing]] fees that are grossly out of alignment with their contribution to the alleged infringer's product or service",<ref>{{cite web|url=http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=925722|title=''Patent Reform and Differential Impact''|author=Matthew Sag and Kurt W. Rohde|publisher=Northwestern University|date=August 21, 2006}}</ref> not their non-practising status or the possible weakness of their patent claims. The risk of paying high prices for after-the-fact licensing of patents they were not aware of, and the costs for extra vigilance for competing patents that might have been issued, in turn increases the costs and risks of manufacturing. On the other hand, the ability to buy, sell and license patents is generally productive. By creating a [[secondary market]] for patents, these activities make the ownership of patents more liquid, thereby creating incentives to innovate and patent.<ref name="The Myth of the Patent Troll"/><ref>{{cite news|url=http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB114187357457393357-lMyQjAxMDE2NDAxOTgwNzkzWj.html|author=Don Clark |title=Inventors See Promise In Large-Scale Public Patent Auctions|publisher=the Wall Street Journal Online|date=March 9, 2006|accessdate = 2007-07-27}}</ref> Also, aggregating patents in the hands of specialized licensing companies facilitates access to technology by more efficiently organizing ownership of patent rights.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.ipfrontline.com/depts/article.asp?id=9899&deptid=8 |author=IPFrontline Staff|title=Making Innovation Pay|publisher=ipFrontline.com|date=March 11, 2006|accessdate = 2007-07-27}}</ref><ref>Nicholas Varchaver,[http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/07/10/8380798/index.htm ''Who's afraid of Nathan Myhrvold?'', [[Fortune Magazine]], June 26, 2006]</ref> ==Mechanics== Patent trolls operate much like any other company that is protecting and aggressively exploiting a [[patent portfolio]]. However, their focus is on obtaining additional money from existing uses, not from seeking out new applications for the technology. They monitor the market for possibly infringing technologies by watching popular products, news coverage and analysis. They also review published [[patent application]]s for signs that another company is developing infringing technology, possibly unaware of their own patents. They then develop a plan for how to proceed. They may start by suing a particularly vulnerable company that has much to lose, or little money to defend itself, hoping that an early victory or settlement will establish a precedent to encourage other peer companies to acquiesce to licenses. Alternately they may attack an entire industry at once, hoping to overwhelm it. An individual case often begins with a perfunctory infringement [[complaint]],<ref name="pirates"/> or even a mere threat of suit, which is often enough to encourage settlement for the nuisance or "threat value" of the suit by purchasing a license to the patent. In the United States, suits are often brought in [[United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas]], known for favoring [[plaintiff]]s and for expertise in patent suits.<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.technologyreview.com/InfoTech-Software/wtr_16280,300,p1.html | publisher=Technology Review | date=February 6, 2006 | accessdate = 2007-07-07 | title=A Haven for Patent Pirates | author=Sam Williams}}</ref> The uncertainty and unpredictability of the outcome of [[jury trial]]s also encourages settlement.<ref name="patworldJune2007"/> If it wins, the plaintiff is entitled as [[damages]] an award of at least a "reasonable" [[Royalties|royalty]] determined according to the norms of the field of the patented invention.<ref>{{cite web | title=US patent law, {{usc|35|284}} | url=http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxl_35_U_S_C_284.htm#usc35s284}}</ref> Patent trolls are at a disadvantage in at least two ways. First, patent owners who make and sell their invention are entitled to awards of lost profits. However, patent trolls, being non-manufacturers, typically do not qualify.{{Citation needed|date=March 2008}} Further, patent owners' rights to bar infringers from manufacture, use, or sale of technologies that infringe their patents has recently been curtailed in the court decision [[eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C.]]. Rather than automatically granting an injunction, the US Supreme Court stated that Courts must apply a standard reasonableness test to determine if an injunction is warranted. Writing in Forbes magazine about the impact of this case on patent trolls, writer Jessica Holzer concludes: "The high court's decision deals a blow to patent trolls, which are notorious for using the threat of permanent injunction to extort hefty fees in licensing negotiations as well as huge settlements from companies they have accused of infringing. Often, those settlements can be far greater than the value of the infringing technology: Recall the $612.5 million that Canada's Research in Motion forked over to patent-holding company NTP to avoid the shutting down of its popular BlackBerry service." <ref>{{cite news|title=Supreme Court Buries Patent Trolls|publisher=Forbes.com|date=May 16, 2006 | accessdate = 2007-07-27|author=Jessica Holzer|url =http://www.forbes.com/home/businessinthebeltway/2006/05/15/ebay-scotus-patent-ruling-cx_jh_0516scotus.html}}</ref> ==Defenses== [[Image:Woodward light bulb.JPG|thumb|Early [[Henry Woodward (light bulb)|Woodward light bulb]] patent purchased by [[Thomas Edison]] to preclude challenges]] Patent troll "companies have no interest in using the patents... but instead hope to reap large sums of money from the lawsuits themselves."<ref>Nick Bilton, [http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/04/an-explosion-of-mobile-patent-lawsuits/ ''An Explosion of Mobile Patent Lawsuits''], The New York Times, Bits (blog), March 4, 2010. Consulted on March 4, 2010.</ref> This gives them an advantage over manufacturers since they are relatively immune to the typical defensive tactic large entities use against small patent plaintiffs, because the cost of litigation tends to fall more heavily on an accused infringer than on a plaintiff with a contingency-fee lawyer, and because trolls have an almost-unrestricted ability to choose their preferred [[Forum shopping|plaintiff-friendly forums]], most prominently the Eastern District of Texas.<ref name="pirates">{{cite journal |author=Craig Tyler |date=September 24, 2004 |publisher=Texas Lawyer |url=http://www.wsgr.com/PDFSearch/09202004_patentpirates.pdf |title=Patent Pirates Search For Texas Treasure | accessdate = 2007-07-27|format=PDF}}</ref> Many common techniques used by companies to protect themselves from producing competitors are rendered ineffective against patent trolls. These techniques include monitoring patent activities of competitors to avoid infringing patents (since patent trolls are not competitors, productive companies usually have no way to find out about the troll or its patents until after significant investments have been made to produce and market a product); going on the offensive with [[counterclaim]]s that accuse the patent plaintiff of infringing patents owned by the defendant (the mutual threat often leads the parties to arrive at a mutually beneficial [[cross-licensing]] arrangement); or a "[[Scorched earth#In business|scorched earth]]" defense designed to drive up litigation costs (which is equally ineffective because patent trolls plan for and have the finances to fully litigate a case.<ref name="pirates"/> In fact, some are able to draw on [[hedge fund]]s and [[institutional investor]]s to finance their patent cases).<ref name="forbes">{{cite news|publisher=Forbes Magazine|author=Nathan Vardi|date=May 7, 2007|title=Patent Pirates|url=http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2007/0507/044.html|accessdate = 2007-07-27}}</ref> Patent "pooling" arrangements where many companies collaborate to bring their patented knowledge together to create new products are also inapplicable to patent trolls because they don't produce products. Substantial companies that attempt over-reaching patent litigation are subject to losing their patent rights to a defensive claim of [[patent misuse]]. However, defendants find it difficult to charge patent trolls with misuse because the [[antitrust]] violations typically involved require significant market power on the part of the patent holder.<ref>{{cite web|title=Antitrust Considerations In Patent Enforcement: A Patent Doesn't Mean Grant Of Monopoly Power|author=Jose Cortina|publisher=Local Tech Wire|url=http://infringement.blogs.com/philip_brooks_patent_infr/2006/07/antitrust_consi.html | date=July 26, 2006|accessdate = 2007-07-27}}</ref> Nevertheless, manufacturers do use various tactics to limit their exposure to patent trolls. Most have broader uses as well for defending their technologies against competitors. These include: * ''[[Design around]]s'' can be a defense against patent trolls. The amount of license fee that a patent troll can demand is limited by the alternative of the cost of designing around the troll's patent(s).<ref>Golden, John M., [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=991698 ''Patent Trolls' and Patent Remedies''], Texas Law Review, Vol. 85, p. 2130, 2007.</ref> * ''[[Patent watch]].'' Companies routinely monitor new patents and patent applications, most of which are published, to determine if any are relevant to their business activities. * ''[[Clearance search]].'' A standard practice is to perform a clearance search for patents or pending patent applications that cover important features of a potential product, before its initial development or commercial introduction. For example, a search by [[Thomas Edison]] uncovered a prior patent by two [[Canada|Canadian]] inventors, [[Henry Woodward (light bulb)|Henry Woodward]] and [[Mathew Evans]] for carbon filament in a non-oxidizing environment, ({{US patent|181613}}), the type of light bulb Edison wanted to develop. Edison bought the patent for US$5,000 (${{Formatnum:{{Inflation|US|5000|1878}}}} in present-day terms{{Inflation-fn|US}}) to eliminate the possibility of a later challenge by Woodward and Evans. * ''[[Opposition proceeding]]''. In Europe, third parties may conduct a [[Opposition procedure before the European Patent Office|proceeding]] to oppose overly broad patents. There is a more limited process in the United States, known as a [[reexamination]]. As an example, [[Research In Motion]], filed reexaminations against broad [[NTP, Inc.]] patents related to [[BlackBerry]] technology. * ''[[Litigation]]''. Whereas some companies acquiesce to a troll's demands, others go on the offensive by challenging the patents themselves, for example by finding [[prior art]] that invalidates their [[patentability]]. They may also broadly challenge whether the technology in question is infringing, or attempt to show patent misuse. If successful, such a defense not only wins the case at hand but destroys the patent troll's underlying ability to sue. Knowing this, the patent troll may back down or lessen its demands. * ''[[Settlement (law)|Early settlement]]''. An early settlement is often far less expensive than litigation costs and later settlement values. * ''[[Patent infringement insurance#Patent infringement insurance|Patent infringement insurance]]''. Insurance is available to help protect companies from inadvertently infringing a third party's patents. * ''[[Defensive patent aggregation]]'', the practice of purchasing patents or patent rights from patent holders so they don't end up in the hands of an individual or enterprise that can assert them. Increasingly aggregations are focused on purchasing patents and patent rights off the open market, or out of NPE assertion and litigation, which directly impact the businesses of the aggregation's members. The aggregator then provides members a broad license to everything it owns in exchange for an annual fixed-fee. Patent defense companies have been formed In order to counteract problems caused by patent trolls in the high technology industry:<ref>[http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/11/24/in-fight-against-patent-trolls-a-new-arrow-in-the-quiver "In Fight Against Patent Trolls, A New Arrow in the Quiver", ''Wall Street Journal'',11/24/08]</ref> * A group of 11 high-tech companies including [[Cisco Systems]], [[Ericsson]], [[Google]], [[Hewlett-Packard]], and [[Verizon]] formed in 2008 [[Allied Security Trust]] with the goal of identifying and obtaining key patents prior to falling into the hands of patent trolls.<ref>Rick Merritt, [http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=208802271 ''Patent pools may flow in wake of latest alliance''], EE Times, 07/02/2008 11:08 PM EDT. Consulted on July 6, 2008.</ref> * In 2008 [[RPX Corporation]] introduced the RPX Defensive Patent Aggregation service to help e-commerce, financial services, hardware manufacturing, networking, software, and wireless companies reduce the risk of NPE assertion and litigation by purchasing patents off the open market.<ref>[http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-10106953-38.html?tag=newsEditorsPicksArea.0 "RPX, Can it Defend Against Patent Trolls", 11/24/08]</ref><ref>''Wall Street Journal'', "Tech Guru Riles the Industry by Seeking Huge Patent Fees", 9/17/08</ref> ==Criticism of the term== {{cleanup|section|date=August 2010}} * ''Overbreadth''. Defining trolls broadly as patent holders that do not practice or promote the patented invention would include [[patent holding company|holding companies]], most U.S. universities and many individual inventors, for example, [[Thomas Edison]] would fall under this definition.<ref name="The Myth of the Patent Troll"/> Large businesses typically have separate licensing departments, and may have separate patent holding companies, that are distinct from their research and development operations. * ''Misapplied''. Accusations of trolling may be conflated with broader criticisms of the patent office, or of patent rights in general, by those who claim the patent system is "broken",<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.madison.com/wsj/mad/business/index.php| author=Judy Newman|date=May 9, 2006|title=Innovators fear the patent trolls}}</ref> when in fact problems like poor quality patents, and [[patent thicket]]s, are issues distinct from patent trolling.<ref name="The Myth of the Patent Troll"/> Critics of the term argue that it is misguided to use it to criticize the patent system, because there are already mechanisms in place to restrain troll-like behavior. The two primary factors are the limited patent term and the obligation to disclose.<ref>{{cite web|accessdate = 2007-07-27|url=http://www.rkmc.com/The_Case_for_Abandoning_the_Term_Patent_Troll.htm |title=The Case for Abandoning the Term 'Patent Troll' |archiveurl = http://web.archive.org/web/20070929000957/http://www.rkmc.com/The_Case_for_Abandoning_the_Term_Patent_Troll.htm <!-- Bot retrieved archive --> |archivedate = 2007-09-29}}</ref> However, others, such as former Assistant Attorney General Viet Dinh, make the case that the need for patent reform is made all the stronger by the existence of patent trolls who exploit vulnerabilities in the existing patent law.<ref>[http://www.patentfairness.org/pdf/Patent%20Reform%20-%20Protecting%20Property%20Rights%20and%20the%20Marketplace%20of%20Ideas%20(Viet%20D.%20Dinh)(12%2003%2007).pdf] Professor Viet Dinh, former Assistant Attorney General for Legal Policy, Dec. 3, 2007</ref> * ''[[Political agenda]]''. The term is used in a partisan manner by companies seeking to gain benefit at [[trial]] or by [[public relations]] by accusing competitors of being trolls, and also those objecting to or wanting to change the current patent laws on [[equity (law)|equitable]] grounds<ref> {{cite web|url=http://www.wral.com/business/local_tech_wire/biotech/story/1167734/|publisher=Local Tech Wire|accessdate = 2007-07-27|title=Examining Patent Troll Debate: Should They Be An Endangered Species?| author=Caroline Horton Rockafellow}}</ref> Former [[Microsoft]] Chief Technology Officer [[Nathan Myhrvold]] alleged that use of the expression "patent troll" is primarily a public relations tactic that large [[corporations]] use to intimidate individual inventors in an effort to tilt the playing field in their favor.<ref> {{cite news|accessdate = 2007-07-27|author=Nathan Myhrvold|url= http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114368437650611883.html|publisher=Wall Street Journal|title=''Inventors Have Rights, Too!'' | date=March 30, 2006}}</ref> Parties that themselves actively enforce and license patents they do not practice, may criticize other companies for trolling when it suits their interest to do so.<ref> {{cite web|url= http://news.com.com/Google,+Yahoo+bury+the+legal+hatchet/2100-1024_3-5302421.html|title=Google, Yahoo bury the legal hatchet|publisher=CNET |date=August 9, 2004|accessdate = 2007-07-27|author=Stefanie Olsen}}</ref> * ''Legality of conduct''. Private ownership of [[property]] generally, and [[intellectual property]] in particular, is a well-established right that cannot be overturned in the United States without raising significant concerns.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://mcsmith.blogs.com/eastern_district_of_texas/files/patent_pirates_exist_only_in_neverland.pdf|author=Michael Smith|date=October 11, 2006|publisher=Texas Lawyer|accessdate = 2007-07-27|title=''Patent Pirates only exist in Neverland''|format=PDF}}, Texas Lawyer, November 11, 2004</ref> Under US law patent owners need not commercialize the [[invention]] to enforce their patents. Patent owners may negotiate any royalty others can be convinced to pay in exchange for a license to not be prohibited from making, using or selling the patented invention, but the only right conferred by holding a US patent is the right to sue to prevent others from making, using or selling the invention or to collect damages for the breach of that right (UK and European patent law, by contrast, contains provisions for [[compulsory license]]s). Moreover, the owner of a patent need not be the inventor. Patents are legally [[transfer (patent)|transferrable]] in the sense that they can be bought, sold and licensed to entities other than the inventor(s).<ref name="auctions">{{cite web|url=http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-6045371.html|title=Patent auctions: Lawyer's dream or way of the future?|publisher=zdnet|author=Michael Kanellos|date=March 3, 2006|accessdate = 2007-07-27 |archiveurl = http://web.archive.org/web/20070403015832/http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-6045371.html <!-- Bot retrieved archive --> |archivedate = 2007-04-03}}</ref> ==Non-practicing entity== In response to the aforementioned criticisms, it has been suggested that the term "non-practicing entity" (NPE) be used instead of the term "patent troll". An NPE is "a [[patent]] owner who does not manufacture or use the patented [[invention]], but rather than abandoning the right to exclude, an NPE seeks to enforce its right through the negotiation of licenses and litigation." <ref name="miranda"/> ==See also== {{Wiktionary|patent troll}} * [[Defensive publication]] * [[Defensive Patent Aggregation]] * [[Independent inventor]] * [[Intellectual property brokering]] * [[Patent ambush]] * [[PatentFreedom]] * [[Projector (patent)]] * [[Rent seeking]] * [[Richard Frenkel]], once anonymous author of the ''Patent Troll Tracker'' blog * [[Submarine patent]] * [[Patentleft]] * [[Trademark troll]] ==References and notes== <!--This article uses the Cite.php citation mechanism. If you would like more information on how to add references to this article, please see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cite/Cite.php --> {{reflist|2}} ==External links== * [http://www.chtlj.org/sites/default/files/media/articles/v025/v025.i1.Sudarshan.pdf Scholarly article on nuisance value patent infringement lawsuits, Author: Ranganath Sudarshan] ==Further reading== * Connell O'Neill, ''The Battle Over Blackberry: Patent Trolls and Information Technology'', The Journal of Law, Information, and Science, 2008, Vol. 17, p.&nbsp;99-133. * Maggie Shiels, ''Technology industry hits out at "patent trolls"'', [[BBC News]], June 2, 2004. [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3722509.stm] * Lorraine Woellert, ''A Patent War Is Breaking Out On The Hill'', [[Business Week]], July, 2005.[http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/05_27/c3941058_mz013.htm] * Joe Beyers, ''Rise of the patent trolls'', [[CNET News.com]], October 12, 2005.[http://news.com.com/Rise+of+the+patent+trolls/2010-1071_3-5892996.html] * Raymond P. Niro, ''The Patent Troll Myth'', Professional Inventors Alliance web site, August 4, 2005.[http://www.piausa.org/patent_reform/articles/raymond_p_niro_08_04_2005] * Raymond P. Niro, ''Who is Really Undermining the Patent System – "Patent Trolls" or Congress?''. [http://jmripl.com/Publications/vol6/issue2/niro.pdf 6 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 185] (2007). * Jennifer Kahaulelio Gregory, "The Troll Next Door", [http://www.jmripl.com/Publications/Vol6/Issue2/Gregory.pdf 6 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 292] (2007). * Simon Phipps, ''On Cane Toads, Fire Ants and Patents'', SunMink, February 13, 2005.[http://blogs.sun.com/webmink/entry/on_cane_toads_fire_ants] * Bakos, Tom, "''Patent Trolls''", Insurance IP Bulletin, Vol. 2005.3, June 2005. [http://marketsandpatents.com/IPB%2006152005.mht] * Ferrill, Elizabeth, "Patent Investment Trusts: Let's Build a PIT to Catch the Patent Trolls", N.C. J. of Law & Tech., Vol 6, Iss. 2: Spring 2005.[http://www.jolt.unc.edu/Vol6_I2/pdf/Ferrill%204-23-05.pdf] * Kurt Leyendecker, "Patent Trolls!", Control, Protect & Leverage, A Leyendecker & Lemire Blog, March 14, 2006. [http://www.lld-law.com/2006/03/patent-trolls.html] * {{cite news|title=Hooray for the Patent Troll!|publisher=[[IEEE Spectrum]]|author=Steven Rubin|date=March, 2007}} * Colleen Chien, Of Trolls, Davids, Goliaths, and Kings: Narratives and Evidence in the Litigation of High-Tech Patents, 87 N.C. L. Rev. 1571 (2009), available at [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1396319 SSRN]. Summarized at [http://ip.jotwell.com/finding-a-place-for-data-in-the-patent-troll-debate Jotwell]. {{DEFAULTSORT:Patent Troll}} [[Category:Patent law]] [[Category:Ethically disputed business practices]] [[Category:Patent monetization companies of the United States]] [[de:Patent-Troll]] [[es:Troll de patentes]] [[fr:Patent troll]] [[ko:특허 괴물]] [[he:טרול פטנטים]] [[nl:Patenttroll]] [[ja:パテント・トロール]] [[ru:Патентный тролль]] [[simple:Patent troll]] [[fi:Patenttitrolli]] [[sv:Patenttroll]]'