Are Patent Trolls Just a Myth?

In the June 2005 issue of Drinker Biddle’s Intellectual Property UPDATE, there is an article called “Patent Trolls: Unfair Name-Calling or Threat to Patent System?” which discusses the March 14 conference by the Intellectual Property Owners Association in Washington, D.C.

William Heinze at I/P Updates attributes the "patent troll" term to Peter Detkin of Intellectual Ventures.  At the conference various attributes of patent trolls were suggested, but the panelists couldn’t seem to agree on a single definition.  A list of attributes however, was identified. Broadly speaking, the patent troll amasses a portfolio of patents without intent to produce any goods or services, but simply to collect licensing fees or damages from alleged infringers. Potential solutions were discussed (although not all agree there is a problem) including legislative changes. 

The U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, the Internet and Intellectual Property held hearings on a committee print released April 14 on proposed changes to the Patent Act, which were aimed partially at correcting the problems allegedly created by patent trolls. The Patent Act of 2005 HR2795, Smith-Berman Bill of June 7, 2005 was introduced as a result of these hearings. 

Dennis Crouch writes a very informative summary of the proposed legislation that can be found on the Patently-O: Patent Law Blog.

So do patent trolls really exist or are they just a myth?  Does the patent holder have legitimate rights to pursue alleged infringers without regard to whether the patent holder actually produces something? Should the calculation of damages change?  I would be interested in reading your comments.

Comments

[Anthony Cerminaro]

Welcome to the Blogosphere. I just made a post to my blog announcing your entry into into this rarified atmosphere. Keep up the good work.