Patent Reform and Some Other Tidbits…Updated 6/5 @ 1:15PM EDT

patent-office_gi_top

Jun 5, 2013 MARKET, Uncategorized 8 2255 Views

Seems like Christopher Mims from Quartz agrees with my sentiments (couldn’t resist)! I did not cover the legislative items because as you may infer from my post below, I don’t have high hopes for them passing. Check out Chris’ interpretation here (6/5/13-update)

It was pretty evident today that a collective shiver went up the spine of investors who are invested in companies suing for patent infringement. Judging from the share depreciation of stocks that could in any way be considered “patent assertion entities” (PAE) it seems that many of these same investors must not have read what exactly the five executive actions intend to cover. A great breakdown on those (5) actions is contained in an article by Julie Samuels from the Electronic Frontier Foundation here.  The point of this post is not to discuss the merits of reform (yes there are many and it could spur greater innovation in the future, everyone gets that) but to analyze any clear and present danger investors may be exposed to.

What I want to point out is how this will affect the cases already in process. It may be necessary for you to read Julie’s article above (or have familiarized yourself with the President’s proposed executive actions through another source) in order to understand the points I’m making (or not and you can just read to read):

1) This action pertains to “new” applications. Presumably this action would not cover any continuation patents. So while a “specific” method may be “cornered” in new applications, I think we will see very little slowdown in infringement cases based on this action since we have about 2 million patents in force (valid) which is more than enough to fuel lawsuits for a decade.

2) Update patents to reflect the real owner. Ok, for the super sneaky patent troll I guess this is a problem but not for the likes of Vringo, or Worlds, or VirnetX or most any legitimate entity bringing suit that I have seen. Yawn…

3) No targeting end users of a product. Great. Most of those users are used as a pawn anyway since it is leverage for Company A to tell allegedly infringing Company B that we will come after all your customers if you don’t settle. To think that Worlds Inc. for example is going to launch millions of actions (or wants to) against all WOW or COD game players is absurd. It is a threat, plain and simple, and beyond that most end users are indemnified against claims arising out of common, everyday use.

4) Address flaws in the system with third party stakeholders and members of the community…what?! This sounds like ordering people to have a group study session. There is no teeth to this action plain and simple. Good idea but no teeth.

5) The last action relates to imports which are often kept out of the U.S. because patents keep them out. This often creates higher prices for consumers which of course can be disadvantageous (can anyone say drugs from Canada?).

So what to make of all this? In many ways patent enforcement cases that we will see in the future are likely to be of higher merit across the board, particularly if they are culled by the threat of the loser paying. As for investors in the patent litigation space, we wish they would read more than a headline to try to ascertain which way the wind is blowing before getting panicky. For those who did read in full (and early), today was a decent day to buy a few quality names in this sector. As for new legislation (which of course would need to pass both houses of Congress in an environment about as cooperative as say the Iranian government with respect to IAEA weapons inspectors) remember there is often an 18-month to two-year lag until implementation.

I don’t mean to sound cavalier on this subject but it is time to get back to the merits of these individual cases which are highly, highly unlikely to be affected by any coming legislation or executive action. It never ceases to amaze me how distracted investors can get.

On a separate note I made a comment in another post the other day about Worlds Inc. (WDDD) requesting authority to enact a r/s in coordination with an up-listing in the future should that be advisable. Similar to the patent reform issue (which of course is considerably more broad) people have failed to realize that Mr. Kidrin has had the authority to enact a r/s and is simply (in the interest of time and expense given that Worlds does not always hold an “annual” meeting of shareholders) asking shareholders to continue to grant said authority. One other critical statement from Mr. Kidrin was the implication that any r/s would happen only “after” the ATVI litigation had run its course. Once again, this issue rises to a bit of a red herring and I applaud savvy investors who have taken advantage of it.

Finally, in a side but related note, NetEase’s original contract for World of Warcraft in China was reputed to pay a 55% minimum royalty to Activision for three years beginning in 2009. This according to Wedbush Securities analyst Michael Pachter.

 

Image from www.i2.cdn.turner.com

Share this on: Facebook // Twitter // Delicious // Digg // Reddit // Stumbleupon

8 Comments for "Patent Reform and Some Other Tidbits…Updated 6/5 @ 1:15PM EDT"


Rick Lohmeyer

Posted on Wednesday 5th June, 2013, 2:43pm

Reply

Excellent points EDVA. As we approach 6/27, all of us shareholders are getting a little jumpy. The pre-markman run appears to have stalled for now, but that only means the percentage gain after a positive markman will increase dramatically! I have been averaging up all along since .21. Please continue your blogs as many of us find them extremely informative.

    edvapatent

    Posted on Wednesday 5th June, 2013, 3:33pm

    Reply

    Hi Rick. Thank you for your comments. I think this stall will be short lived. There is just too much potential with Worlds for it to be held down for long. As with so many things in the public discourse, people latch on to the “extreme” case (usually captured in a headline) and attempt to transpose it upon the most likely scenario. I must say it can be hard to get a word in edgewise when people are screaming “fire” but I’ll continue to call it as I see it. Thanks again.

      Rick Lohmeyer

      Posted on Thursday 6th June, 2013, 4:13pm

      Reply

      EDVA,
      In mental preparation for the Markman trial, what is your best estimate for the length of time before a ruling? With 55 claims I am thinking this may take 4-5 weeks.
      Thanks

        edvapatent

        Posted on Friday 7th June, 2013, 3:54pm

        Reply

        There are only 11 terms that need construction. The thing that will impact this the most is the rest of the Judge’s caseload. She is presiding over the trial of Whitey Bulger which is similar to what Judge Jackson has on his plate in Virginia now (and why the VRNG RR response may be so slow in coming). There is just no way to know. Could be 2-3 weeks and it could be 6-8. I know that isn’t very helpful but it’s just the way it works.

      John

      Posted on Saturday 8th June, 2013, 5:00pm

      Reply

      Hello EDVA, thank you for the unselfish dissemination of meaningful information during the VRNG trial. I am truly a FAN. Will you be giving play by play updates like you did during the VRNG trial? Thanks in advance.

        edvapatent

        Posted on Tuesday 11th June, 2013, 8:55pm

        Reply

        Play by play will be more difficult since the hearing is scheduled to be less than 5 hours. If we can discern a preliminary winner during active trading hours we will let people know but there will likely not be extensive analysis of what we witnessed until later.

muralibala

Posted on Tuesday 11th June, 2013, 1:38pm

Reply

Edva – Thanks again. Are WDDD and BCYP NPE’s?

Law Firm India

Posted on Thursday 13th June, 2013, 8:13am

Reply

Well, very helpful information about patent

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

@ Copyright 2014. EdvaDaily site by Atlanta Marketing Consultants
Top