4 ms·
Issuing a license is a form of "using it" in a use it or lose it scenario. Those are not patent troll companies. Patent troll companies file patents and then
by jonwachob91 3y ago
Issuing a license is a form of "using it" in a use it or lose it scenario.
Those are not patent troll companies.
Patent troll companies file patents and then sit on the patent until they can sue another party for infringement, and never make an attempt to commercialize their patent.
Another example of not using it in the use it or lose it scenario is Pfizer's acquisition of Esperion Therapeutics in 2004. Esperion was developing a competitor to Lipitor, so Pfizer purchased Esperion for $1.3BB and shelved the technology to prevent competition with their best selling drug. Had Pfizer "lost" their patent for failing to commercial Esperion's drug, that drug could have entered the market as a generic to compete with Lipitor and severely reduced the cost of statin drugs for consumers.
- lukan 3y agoThat is hard I think, as there are patents that are not licenced because no one wants to - but I think every holder of a patent must licence it to any party interested. So just "sitting on patents" is not really possible to my knowledge. (but I am really not an expert here)
- floating-io 3y agoIf I'm understanding what you're saying correctly, then I'm not sure where you got that idea. Patent holders are not required to license their patents last time I checked. You are simply required to acquire a license prior to using patented technology. If they don't want to license it, you're SOL. (edit: if you were speculating on what should be, and not what is, then my bad... :)
- lukan 3y ago"Patent holders are not required to license their patents last time I checked." That is apparently right and I learned it wrong (but it does seems wrong to me). edit: after reading the siblings answer, I apparently wrongly overgeneralized the way it works with patents in standards
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- smachiz 3y agoOnly for patents used in standards - where the standard enforces FRAND/RAND/other licensing schemes to insure that 'standards-required' patents are available to all. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_and_non-discriminatory_licensing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reasonable_and_non-discriminat... This is Qualcomm's big business (and others), getting their patents into standards like 5G and then charging people a fair amount to use it - and they have to license it to everyone, even their arch nemesis. Or you just buy their chips. For a patent of something you invented, but did not submit to become part of a standards-body, you absolutely can choose not to license it for any amount of money.
- amadeuspagel 3y agoWhat's your bargaining position when you lose a patent that might be useful for only a few companies if you don't issue a license?
- ThrowawayTestr 3y agoIf it's only useful to a few companies then it must be niche IP and therefore valuable.
- crdrost 3y ago> Issuing a license is a form of "using it" in a use it or lose it scenario. Patent trolls will point to their prior victims as current licensees, proving successful commercialization.
- pwg 3y ago> Patent troll companies file patents and then sit on the patent until they can sue another party for infringement Many of the patents asserted by trolls were not actually filed by the trolls. Most often the troll company simply purchased the patent from the original owner (or, often, a bankruptcy court) and then they proceed to go about suing others using their newly acquired weapon.
- btilly 3y agoWorse yet, the troll company was often created for the purpose of owning that specific group of patents. That limits the damage from a lawsuit gone wrong to just that group of patents, and not the many other patents owned by the hundreds of other similar troll companies that the same lawyer runs. We really need a patent troll version of anti-SLAPP laws. To go past the shell company, and hit the people who run them.