On October 6th, 2016, the Federal Trade Commission
(FTC) released a greatly anticipated study, the subject focusing on
various Patent Assertion Entities' (PAE) business operations
over a six year period. For purposes of the study, the FTC defined
PAEs as business entities that "acquire patents from third
parties and seek to generate revenue by asserting them against
alleged infringers." Patent Assertion Entity Activity, An
FTC Study, Federal Trade Commission, at 1 (Oct. 6,
2016).
The FTC, authorized by the Federal Trade Commission Act, collected
confidential business information and conducted industry studies
over the period January 2006 to September 2014. Id. at
3. The FTC sought to obtain "a deeper understanding of
PAE business models" by considering behavior that was not
publicly observable, including how the entities structured
themselves and their confidential acquisition and licensing terms.
Id. at 2. The FTC categorized each PAE it studied
("Study PAE") as one of two business models: (1)
portfolio PAEs or (2) litigation PAEs. Id. at 2. The FTC
defined "portfolio PAEs" as those that sought to
negotiate licenses to substantial portfolios of patents prior to
filing suit. Id. at 46. Litigation PAEs were defined as
those entities that entered negotiations almost always after filing
suit, settling shortly afterward, typically with a lump-sum
payment. Id. at 47. Most of the cases documented were
filed in either the Eastern District of Texas or the District of
Delaware. Id. at 80.
The study found portfolio PAEs to make up only 9% of the reported
licenses, but 80% of the reported revenue, totaling $3.2 billion
over the period of the study. Id. at 42. Litigation PAEs
accounted for 91% of the reported licenses, but only 20% of the
reported revenue. Id. at 43. This revenue totaled $800
million over the study period. Id. The FTC commented that
the apparent difference in the royalty payment ratio to reported
licenses shows litigation PAEs partaking in behavior likened to
"nuisance litigation." Id. A large amount of the
litigation PAE agreements resulted in less than $300,000 in
royalties, which was the lower end of the average early-stage costs
of litigation. Id. In other words, the litigation costs
were equivalent to the royalty payments received as a result of
filing the lawsuit in most litigation PAE cases. Id. While
the FTC recognized the important role of litigation in protecting
patent rights, it noted that nuisance infringement litigation
"can tax judicial resources and divert attention away from
productive business behavior." Id. at 9.
Recommendations for Reform
The FTC concluded the study with various recommendations for
patent law reform. The recommendations focused on striking a
balance between promoting a robust judicial system that respects
the patent laws on one hand and promoting productive business
behavior and judicial efficiency on the other. Id.
First, the FTC proposed reforms which address discovery burdens and
cost asymmetries in PAE litigation. "Because they do not
invent, develop, or manufacture products incorporating their
patented technology," PAEs have less discoverable information
and can subject a defendant to exhaustive discovery requests.
Legislative reform could address case management practices that
take costs and asymmetries into account. The FTC proposed that this
would be accomplished by amending Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure (FRCP), to focus on early disclosure of asserted
claims, and contentions regarding infringement and invalidity,
limit discovery before preliminary motions, and require early
disclosure of damages theories. Id. at 9-10.
Second, the FTC suggested providing courts and defendants with more
information about plaintiffs that have filed infringement lawsuits.
The FTC argued this would be accomplished by amending FRCP Rule 7.1
to include a broader range of non-party groups that may be
interested in the litigation. By including a broader range of
non-party groups, courts and defendants would become aware of all
the sub-entities derived from the parent PAEs. Id. at
11.
Third, the FTC proposed streamlining multiple cases brought against
defendants on the same theories of infringement. For example, most
PAEs covered in the study brought infringement suits against both
the manufacturer and the customer and/or retailer on the same
theories. The FTC suggested that enactment of provisions that would
result in combining those cases into one would encourage district
courts to stay actions against end-users until the manufacturer
suit has been resolved. Id. at 12.
Lastly, the FTC recommended providing notice of infringement
theories surrounding PAE litigations to the courts as they continue
to develop heightened pleading requirements for patent cases.
Id. at 12-13.
While it is uncertain whether the FTC study will lead to the
reforms proposed in the study, the FTC has provided an in depth and
unprecedented look at the structure and licensing behavior of
PAEs.
You can find the entire report here: "Patent Assertion Entity Activity: An FTC
Study".
This article is intended to provide information of general interest to the public and is not intended to offer legal advice about specific situations or problems. Brinks Gilson & Lione does not intend to create an attorney-client relationship by offering this information and review of the information shall not be deemed to create such a relationship. You should consult a lawyer if you have a legal matter requiring attention. For further information, please contact a Brinks Gilson & Lione lawyer.