|
In pejorative usage, a patent troll is a person or company that attempts to enforce patent rights against accused infringers far beyond the patent's actual value or contribution to the prior art. Patent trolls often do not manufacture products or supply services based upon the patents in question. However, some entities which do not practice their asserted patent may not be considered "patent trolls" when they license their patented technologies on reasonable terms in advance. Other related terms include patent holding company (PHC), patent assertion entity (PAE), and non-practicing entity (NPE), which may or may not be considered a "patent troll" depending on the position they are taking and the perception of that position by the public. A variation of the problem is when companies do make some degree of attempt to develop products but, when their product fails, conclude that they can instead be more successful at litigating a portion of the profits from those that become more successful at development. Patent trolling has been less of a problem in Europe than in the U.S. because Europe has a loser pays costs regime. In contrast, the U.S. generally used the so-called American rule, providing that each party is responsible for paying its own attorney's fees, until U.S. Supreme Court decided ''Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc.'' on April 29, 2014. ==Etymology and definition== The term "patent troll" was used at least once in 1993 with a slightly different meaning, to describe countries that file aggressive patent lawsuits.〔 The 1994 educational video, ''The Patents Video'' also used the term, depicting a green troll guarding a bridge and demanding fees.〔(【引用サイトリンク】url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lOGoZFzHkhs )〕 The origin of the term patent troll has also been variously attributed to Anne Gundelfinger, or Peter Detkin, both counsel for Intel, during the late 1990s. 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.〔 〕 Definitions include a party that does one or more of the following: * Purchases a patent, often from a bankrupt firm, and then sues another company by claiming that one of its products infringes on the purchased patent;〔(【引用サイトリンク】title=patent troll )〕 * Enforces patents against purported infringers without itself intending to manufacture the patented product or supply the patented service;〔(【引用サイトリンク】title=''On 'Patent Trolls' and Injunctive Relief'' ), ipfrontline.com, May 12, 2006〕 * Enforces patents but has no manufacturing or research base;〔Morag Macdonald, 〕 * Focuses its efforts solely on enforcing patent rights; or * Asserts patent infringement claims against non-copiers or against a large industry that is composed of non-copiers.〔(What is a troll patent and why are they bad? ), By TJ Chiang (Professor at George Mason Law School), March 6, 2009〕 The term "patent pirate" has been used to describe both patent trolling and acts of patent infringement.〔Craig Tyler, (''Patent Pirates Search For Texas Treasure'' ), Texas Lawyer, September 20, 2004〕 Related expressions are "non-practising entity" (NPE) (defined as "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"〔), "patent assertion entity" (PAE), "non-manufacturing patentee",〔Katherine E. White, (''Preserving the Patent Process to Incentivize Innovation in Global Economy'' ), 13 Syracuse Sci. & Tech. L. Rep. 27 (2006).〕 "patent shark",〔Gerard Magliocca, (''Blackberries and Barnyards: Patent Trolls and the Perils of Innovation'' ), 82 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1809 (2007).〕 "patent marketer",〔〔Susan Walmsley Graf, (''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.〕 "patent assertion company",〔FTC Report, March 2011, (The Evolving IP Marketplace : Aligning Patent Notices and Remedies with Competition ), page 8, footnote 5; page 50, footnote 2.〕 and "patent dealer". Confusion over use of the term patent troll is clear in research and media reporting. In 2014, Price Waterhouse Coopers published research into patent litigation including a study of non-practicing entities including individual inventors and non-profit organisations such as universities.〔http://www.pwc.com/en_US/us/forensic-services/publications/assets/2014-patent-litigation-study.pdf〕 In quoting that research, media outlets such as the Washington Post labelled all non-practicing entities as patent trolls. 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「Patent troll」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|