BradReese.Com Cisco Hardware Quotes Call Toll Free 877-549-2680 or 828-277-7272

Home About Repair Power Supplies Refurbished Blog Quick Links Site Map Contact Us

 
Brad Reese speaks out
Learn more about Brad Reese...
Archive
  Help

Aironet

Power Supplies

VoIP Gateways

Cisco Repair

Refurbished Cisco

Cisco CPQRGs

New Cisco

New HP ProCurve

Cisco Tools

Competitive Lab Tests

Tech Forums

How-to Tutorials

CCIE Gossip

Blogroll

 
View archive of Brad Reese speaks out

Subscribe to Bloggers speak out on BradReese.Com

Cisco's open letter to the European Union, Parliament, Commission and Unified Patent Court

"In the United States, litigation brought by Patent Assertion Entities (PAEs), entities whose business model is based solely on extracting settlements through the assertion of often low-quality patents, reportedly cost U.S. businesses $29 billion in 2011 alone and resulted in half a trillion dollars in lost wealth from 1990 to 2010."

Hummelstown, PA:   Thu, 9/26/13 - 12:12pm    View comments
 

Contact Brad Reese

 

26 September 2013
 

Member States of the European Union
Members of the European Parliament
European Commission
Preparatory Committee, Unified Patent Court
 

We, the undersigned organizations, are a group of global innovators and users of the European patent system. As innovators, we depend on effective patent systems worldwide.

We appreciate that Europe has long worked towards a unified patent system, and we hope the proposed new system will be a significant step forward with the potential to benefit both the creators and consumers of innovative products and technologies. An effective and balanced unitary patent system has the potential to decrease the costs of obtaining patent protection, increase European competitiveness, and support the long-term growth of innovative industries in Europe and abroad.

We are concerned, however, that two aspects of the 15th draft of the rules of procedure for the Unified Patent Court (UPC) may undermine these benefits by creating significant opportunities for abuse:

  1. Bifurcation:   Patent cases often involve the related issues of whether a particular patent is valid and, if so, whether it has been infringed. The UPC Agreement allows these questions to be decided by different courts in the same case, but gives little guidance as to when or how this should or should not be done. This could, in some cases, allow plaintiffs to obtain a quick infringement ruling, along with an injunction barring products from most of the European market, before any determination of whether the patent in question is actually valid. Given the drastic impact of such an injunction on the defendant, unprincipled plaintiffs would be able to extract substantial royalties (through settlements or verdicts) from European and other companies based on low-quality, and potentially invalid patents.

    By enabling this unbalanced patent system, the proposed new patent system could undermine, rather than promote, innovation in Europe, as producing companies could develop strategies to avoid European jurisdictions in fear of an unfair litigation system being too advantageous for patent proprietors. Such strategies could include divesting resources from Europe, thus driving genuine innovation elsewhere. And any significant increase in litigation costs would undoubtedly consume company resources which could be better spent on innovation and growth. Manufacturing companies in Europe should not be placed at a competitive disadvantage compared to companies that manufacture in other regions where patent jurisdiction is more balanced.

    In order to mitigate the potential for such abuses before the UPC, procedural adjustments to the UPC rules of procedure are needed to provide clear guidance and predictability on how bifurcated proceedings where the validity of the patent is an issue should be handled and to permit defendants in bifurcated cases to more easily obtain a stay of infringement proceedings until a decision on patent validity has been reached.

  2. Injunctions:   Injunctions permit patent holders to bar unlicensed products containing their technology from the market. It is a powerful, and in some cases, appropriate tool for patent holders. However, rigid application of an injunction rule could enable unprincipled litigants to "hold up" manufacturers by making unreasonable royalty demands for even a single trivial patent on a complex product. A rule that does not offer sufficient guidelines on when to grant injunctions will create strong incentives for abusive behaviors and harm the innovation that the patent system is designed to promote.

    This will be particularly true with injunctions under the UPC because the UPC injunction power will extend beyond a single country to most of Europe, and it could be used with the intended effect of impeding product sales across the region. This substantial bargaining power to force excessive settlements from companies would, in all likelihood, lead to a rise of abusive litigation before the UPC. Indeed, PAEs have already begun to set up shop in several European countries, drawn by the potential for siphoning more revenue from European companies.

    The potential for these types of abuses is not only theoretical. In the United States, litigation brought by Patent Assertion Entities (PAEs), entities whose business model is based solely on extracting settlements through the assertion of often low-quality patents, reportedly cost U.S. businesses $29 billion in 2011 alone and resulted in half a trillion dollars in lost wealth from 1990 to 2010.1 PAEs' infringement claims are often spurious or based on invalid patents, as demonstrated by the fact that they prevail in less than 9% of the cases in which their claims are fully adjudicated on the merits.2 Despite the weakness of their legal claims, PAEs are often highly profitable due to their success in extracting settlements. The lucrative nature of PAEs has led to a rapid rise in U.S. patent litigation. Indeed, PAE litigation now accounts for the majority of all U.S. patent litigation.3 The diversion of revenues from R&D and patenting activities to pay for escalating litigation costs and excessive royalties is staggering, with no resulting gain to innovation.

    To mitigate the potential for abuses of such power, courts should be guided by principles set forth in the rules of procedure to assess proportionality prior to granting injunctions. And PAEs should not be allowed to use injunctions for the sole purpose of extracting excessive royalties from operating companies that fear business disruption.

We believe that these concerns can and should be addressed through targeted changes to the proposed UPC rules of procedure. Several of the undersigned organizations will recommend specific changes to the proposed rules to the Preparatory Committee, which is responsible for establishing and implementing the UPC. These changes will include guidance to the judiciary on how to handle bifurcated proceedings when validity is raised, when to issue a stay of an infringement action and when to issue injunctions. Adoption of these amendments will allow operating companies to focus on innovation instead of litigation, thereby fostering economic growth and prosperity in Europe.

We look forward to working with European Signatories and the Preparatory Committee to achieve mutually beneficial reforms that build confidence in the new unified system and drives European economic and technological growth.
 

Cisco Systems Inc.


 

1 See, e.g., John R. Allison, Mark A. Lemley, and Joshua Walker, Patent Quality and Settlement Among Repeat Patent Litigants, 99 GEO. L.J. 677, 694 (2011) (finding that — excluding default judgments — PAE plaintiffs win only 8% of cases that reach a judgment on the merits).

2 See, e.g., John R. Allison, Mark A. Lemley, and Joshua Walker, Patent Quality and Settlement Among Repeat Patent Litigants, 99 GEO. L.J. 677, 694 (2011) (finding that — excluding default judgments — PAE plaintiffs win only 8% of cases that reach a judgment on the merits).

3 In 2012, 58.7% of patent lawsuits in the U.S. were filed by patent monetization entities. See Robin Feldman, Tom Ewing, and Sara Jeruss, The AIA 500 Expanded: The Effects of Patent Monetization Entities

 

Related stories:

Audio tape of Cisco's lawyer being humiliated in court

Cisco's customers are being sued for using Cisco's products
 


What's your take?

Contact Brad Reese

Subscribe to Bloggers speak out on BradReese.Com

Brad's Favorite Story Picks

  1. Cisco nPower X1 NPU, CRS-X and network convergence system (NCS) questions with answers
  2. An embarrassed Cisco backtracks on CCIE Voice retirement
  3. You don't know NetFlow - Mike Patterson
  4. Aruba, Cisco and HP top 2013 Gartner Wired and Wireless LAN Magic Quadrant
  5. Extreme Enterasys will become the new E & E of networking
  6. Audio tape of Cisco's lawyer being humiliated in court
  7. For the first time in history the Cisco overseas headcount now outnumbers the U.S. headcount
  8. View Cisco's entire RMA global customer database online
  9. Unconfirmed rumor Cisco gave totally fake TelePresence demo to President George W. Bush
  10. Unconfirmed rumor: Belkin will guillotine Linksys staff in October
  11. National security behind new murder trial of former Cisco employee
  12. Cisco's now actively considering external candidates to replace CEO John Chambers
  13. Is the National Security Agency (NSA) killing innovation at Cisco?
  14. Cisco could own the SDN market
  15. Cisco's abusive income tax evasion achieved 11% effective income tax rate during FY13
  16. The official list of Cisco executive direct reports
  17. Home Depot senior IT security architect, Ricky Joe Mitchell (Cisco CCNA), indicted for computer network sabotage costing $1 million
  18. Cisco appears to be running out of money for stock buybacks
  19. Cisco channel stuffing and days sales outstanding (DSO) appear out of control
  20. View the archive of Bloggers speak out on BradReese.Com
 
blog comments powered by Disqus

CCIE available Metro DC

Supplement Cisco SMARTnet Contracts

 

©2013 BradReese.Com - Home - About - Repair - Power Supplies - Refurbished - Blog - Quick Links - Site Map - Contact Us