Non-Practicing Entity /Troll Cases

Trolls/NPEs with whom M&G has experience

Merchant & Gould is regularly retained to represent its clients nation-wide against trolls/NPEs. Through these engagements M&G has developed a deep knowledge about certain trolls.
I.   NPEs with whom M&G is/has litigating/ed.
TQP (113) – encrypted data system
Katz (92) - variety
Webvention (72) – hover link
Main Hastings (68) – variety
Landmark Technology LLC (61) – web sales
Lodsys (46) – web question feedback
VTran Media (32) – interactive TV
Innovatio IP Ventures (34) – mesh network wifi
eTagz (34) – CD or DVD on or part of a hang tag
Phoenix Licensing (24) – financial products
Select Retrieval (23) – web links
Autoscribe/Pollin (18) – payment systems
Automated Facilities (13) - MPEG
PPS Data (13) – medical billing
Acacia Research (12 - DJs) – microphone array
Kelora Systems (10) – guided internet search
Reshare (11) – geographic based web sales
Commercial Recovery Corp. (CRC) (10) – collection system
Alliacense (7) – computer chips
HVAC Modulation (Acacia) (5) – HVAC
Endotach (Acacia) (5) – medical device
Bedrock Computer (2) – computer storage
Precision Links (2) – tie down strap
SelfLink (1) – event alarm system
CML&J (1) – beverage container ends
Sorenson Research & Tools (1) -- tools
II.   Other most active recent NPEs.
Pragmatus Telecom (Pragmatus) (91) – call center/customer help
The Tawnsaura Group (83) – nutrition products
NovelPoint (84) – automated vehicle (fleet) tracking
Walker Digital (49) – online sales (substitution of product)
DietGoal (42) – computerized food database
PJC Logistics (45) – vehicle tracking
Graphics Properties (32) – “supercomputer”
PI-Net (29) – live two-way online transactions
McRo (31) – animated characters
FastVDO (27) -- video
Eclipse IP (32) – vehicle notification system
Wi-Lan (39) – wireless lan
Round Rock (22) – memory data storage
Transdata (18) – utility power
Peschke Map (18) – digital maps
Gametek (16) – computer games
Clouding IP (15) – manipulation of information for mobile devices
ORG Structure Innovations (13) – data organization
Infinity Computer (14) – fax/scanner with PC
DSL patents and Cruise Control (16)
Infinite Data (9) – message passing system
Innovative Communications (9) – voice and data streams
Interface IP Holdings (14) – drop down menu
Trans Video Electronics Ltd. (9) – video distribution
AIP Acquisition (8) – callback system
Arczar (8) – computer visual system.
Light Transformation Technologies LLC (5) – lighting systems
Vehicle cruise control
Uniloc Luxembourg S.A. (52) – online authentication
MacroSolve, Inc. (45) – Online business methods (e.g., internet questionnaires)
CDD Technologies, LLC (12) – graphical user interfaces
Cruise Control Technologies LLC (12) – Vehicle Speed
LifePort Sciences LLC (4) - Endovascular grafting systems
Voice Integration Technologies (4) – Voicemail Services 


NPE Love Letters: Best Practices and Important Considerations

The First Step - Should You Respond?

  • Conduct an internal investigation.
    • What products are affected?
    • How much money is at stake?
  • Get the right decision makers together to discuss the strengths of the accusations and their impact on your business.
  • Remember there is no duty to respond – NPEs often contact many companies and may forget about you.

Take Internal Action To Address The Patent

  • Determine if you can redesign your product to be clearly non-infringing.
  • Analyze whether getting an opinion of counsel is a sufficient response.
  • Consider whether you need a “document hold” notice to preserve evidence.

Research Your Adversary

  • Study the NPE’s company history and assets.
    • A newer, less funded NPE may be looking for a quick settlement at a lower amount.
    • An older, more-established NPE may be seeking a larger amount.
  • Are there other patents in the NPE’s portfolio that your company wants to address now?
  • What is the litigation track record for these patents?
  • Have the claims of the patents been construed?
  • Does the NPE always settle before trial?
  • Reach out to your friends at other companies or law firms to get competitive intelligence on the NPE.
  • Study the quality and track record of the NPE’s selected counsel.
    • Is the NPE a major client of that firm?  Their only client?
    • Do the attorneys typically charge hourly or on contingency?

What Can You Learn From Prior Proceedings?

  • Study prior litigation to get an idea of the strength of the NPE’s case (prior claim constructions, prior infringement and invalidity arguments, etc.)
  • Review the prosecution of the patent(s), including any reexaminations, to assess invalidity arguments and potential prosecution history estoppel.
  • A patent that has not been challenged in court or at the PTO may have undiscovered vulnerabilities.

If You Respond, Get More Information

  • Request more information and time to evaluate.
  • Ask for an identification of all infringing products and an infringement claim chart.
  • Get prior licensing information.
  • Affirm the fact that your company takes IP seriously.

Keep Your Discussions Confidential

  • If the NPE wants to engage in discussions, enter into a confidentiality agreement that ensures the discussions are private and you can get the information you need.
  • Take precautions in the confidentiality agreement to make sure your discussions can’t be used in litigation.

Consider A Declaratory Judgment Action

  • A declaratory judgment allows a company to pick the forum that is the best fit.
  • Speed is valuable to an NPE, so research the time-to-trial in various jurisdictions.
  • Determine whether you prefer a forum that is more likely to hold an early Markman hearing or entertain early summary judgment motions.

The NPE Files Litigation – What Are Your Next Steps?

  • Assess the business case for defending the litigation.
  • Determine whether someone has a duty to indemnify your company.
  • Focus your target on the NPE’s most valuable assets by attacking the infringement, validity or enforceability of the patent(s).   
  • Research a transfer of venue (out of jurisdictions like the Eastern District of Texas) if the defendant doesn’t have significant ties to the venue.

Factors To Consider In NPE Litigation

  • Evaluate whether your company or someone else has the biggest stake in the litigation and wants to take the lead.
  • Consider whether it makes sense to join a joint defense group and share fees, costs and ideas.
  • Schedule the case wisely -- when do you want claim construction, summary judgment, trial?
  • Test ownership and assignment rights to the patent(s).

Take The Patent(s) Back To The PTO

  • Initiate proceedings before the PTO to reassess the validity of the patent(s).
    • Post-Grant Review
    • Inter Partes Review
    • Ex Parte Reexamination
  • A court might stay the litigation while the patents are before the PTO, especially if it is early in the case.
  • The risks to a patentee whose patent is in PTO proceedings may drive a resolution of the case.

PTO Proceedings Under The America Invents Act

  • Post-grant review is available during the nine months after a patent’s issuance or reissuance.
    • Can use any grounds to challenge patent validity.
  • Inter partes review is available after the later of: (1) nine months from patent issuance or reissuance or (2) termination of post-grant review.
    • Can use patents or printed publications to challenge patent validity. 
  • Ex parte reexamination continues in the same form.

 Is Going To The PTO The Right Option?

  • PTO proceedings carry risks for defendant(s) and should be used carefully.
  • Patents might be “washed” if they make it out of the PTO proceedings. 
  • Defendants may be estopped in litigation from challenging patent claims on invalidity grounds that were or could have been raised in the course of an inter partes review.
No Media Found