Figure 23. The Frequency That NPEs Transferred Technical Knowledge in Addition to the Patent License, According to Respondents in the Computer Industry

Based on our very preliminary evidence, the theory that NPEs facilitate innovation via patent license demands either through the creation of new products or by delivering actual technical know-how from inventors to implementers does not seem to hold water.

Patent trolls are the hottest topic of debate within patent law today.

A critical factual assumption that underlies this debate is whether patent licensing by trolls is in fact a mechanism for technology transfer to the licensees and the creation of new products, or whether a request that a company take a patent license is simply a means of collecting money in exchange for agreeing not to sue.

Patent trolls—patent-holding entities that do not make any products but sue or threaten others with patent infringement—are the subject of intense debate.

The disclosure of the invention is an essential consideration in any patent granting procedure.

Traditionally, IPR is divided into two forms: industrial property rights and copyright. In general, copyright is a legal term describing rights given to creators over their literary and artistic creations, while the term ‘industrial property rights’ refers to certain exclusive rights regarding innovative ideas or distinguishing signs in the industrial or commercial field.

The life cycle of technologies can be divided into stages – from invention, through research, development and dissemination (RD&D) and market development, to commercial diffusion.

A patent may be a powerful business tool allowing innovators to gain exclusivity over a new product or process, develop a strong market position and earn additional revenue through licensing.

Although there were some patenting and licensing concerns with GraphQL, these have been resolved to our satisfaction by the relicensing of the reference implementations under MIT, and the use of the OWF license for the GraphQL specification.

The most controversial issue in RAND licensing is whether the "reasonable" license price should include the value contributed by the standard-setting organization's decision to adopt the standard. A technology is often more valuable after it has been widely adopted than when it is one alternative among many; there is a good argument that a license price that captures that additional value is not "reasonable" because it does not reflect the intrinsic value of the technology being licensed. On the other hand, the adoption of the standard may signal that the adopted technology is valuable, and the patent holder should be rewarded accordingly. That is particularly relevant when the value of the patent is not clearly known before the adoption of the standard.

If you recall your LMS patent infringement history, then you'll remember that roles and permissions were exactly the thing that Blackboard sued D2L over.

A “notice” slapped on the outside of a package saying “single use only” continues to ensure a manufacturer selling you the product can sue for patent infringement should someone dare reuse its goods. This is what the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held on Friday, reaffirming its previous case law, despite intervening Supreme Court law and compelling arguments against its earlier case law.

Keywords : anticommons, copyright, intellectual property, Lockean Proviso, patent, property rights, state of nature, trademark, utilitarian theory