A Generation of Patent Litigation
San Diego Law Review
Volume 52 | Issue 1
Article 3
3-1-2015
A Generation of Patent Litigation
Michael Risch
Follow this and additional works at: https://digital.sandiego.edu/sdlr
Part of the Intellectual Property Law Commons
Recommended Citation
Michael Risch, A Generation of Patent Litigation, 52 San Diego L. Rev. 67 (2015).
Available at: https://digital.sandiego.edu/sdlr/vol52/iss1/3
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law School Journals at Digital USD. It has been accepted for inclusion in San Diego Law
Review by an authorized editor of Digital USD. For more information, please contact .
RISCH FOR PRINT (DO NOT DELETE)
10/30/2018 2:20 PM
A Generation of Patent Litigation
MICHAEL RISCH*
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.
II.
III.
IV.
INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................68
BACKGROUND............................................................................................74
METHODOLOGY AND DATA COLLECTION ...................................................77
A. Selecting the NPEs...........................................................................77
B. Selecting a Loosely Matched Random Control Set ..........................80
1. Choosing “Normal” Cases .......................................................80
2. Selecting the Cases ...................................................................81
3. Using a Hybrid Solution ...........................................................85
4. NPEs in the Matching Set .........................................................86
C. Litigation Identification and Data ...................................................88
D. Patent Identification and Data.........................................................89
ANALYSIS AND POLICY IMPLICATIONS .......................................................92
A. Case Complexity ..............................................................................92
1. The Data ...................................................................................92
*
© 2015 Michael Risch, Professor of Law, Villanova University School of Law.
The Author thanks David Abrams, Chris Buccafusco, Michael Burstein, Colleen Chien,
Eric Claeys, John Duffy, Mark Lemley, Thomas Sager, David Schwartz, Josh Wright,
Felix Wu, and participants of the 2013–14 Edison Fellowship Program, 2013–14 Cardozo
IP & Information Law Colloquium, and 2014 IP Scholars Conference for their helpful
comments and feedback. The Author further thanks Patent Freedom, Lex Machina, John
Allison, and Brian Corcoran for providing, or assisting in providing, some of the data used
in this study. This seemingly endless project could not have been completed without the
seemingly endless support provided by the Villanova University School of Law. Valuable
research assistance for this study was provided by Dustin Bednarz, Doug Behrens, Jamey
Collidge, Brian Corcoran, Jarina D’Auria, Richard Eiszner, Adam Fenstermaker, Amanda
Garger, Nate Griffith, Simran Kaur, Christie Larochelle, Meredith Lussier, Josh Nightingale,
Samantha Peruto, Jessica Watkins, Molly Yingling, and Brett Zakeosian. Data collection
efforts were supported by an Edison Fellowship and a da Vinci Fellowship from the Center
for the Protection of Intellectual Property and a summer research assistant grant from
Intellectual Ventures. None of the patents studied were asserted by Intellectual Ventures.
67
RISCH FOR PRINT (DO NOT DELETE)
10/30/2018 2:20 PM
2.
V.
Policy Implications ................................................................... 98
a. Venue and Filing Rules ..................................................... 98
b. The Rise of the Eastern District of Texas .......................... 98
c. Case Management........................................................... 100
d. Reporting ........................................................................ 101
B. Non-Merits Outcomes .................................................................... 102
C. Invalidity Outcomes ....................................................................... 106
1. The Data ................................................................................. 106
2. Bases for Invalidity ................................................................. 113
3. Reexamination ........................................................................ 114
4. Testing Measures of Patent Quality ........................................ 116
5. Policy Implications ................................................................. 122
D. Infringement Outcomes .................................................................. 124
1. The Data ................................................................................. 124
2. Policy Implications ................................................................. 130
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................... 131
I. INTRODUCTION
Despite a virtual avalanche of patent studies issued during the past few
years, simple but fundamental questions necessary to address patent
reform remain unanswered. Most importantly, the studies do not tell us
whether the currency of the patent system—the patent itself—is the core
part of the problem. Is patent quality the cause of patent woes? Are
litigants the problem? Current studies do not disaggregate these questions.
This study adds to the literature by considering every outcome of every
patent in every case, and finding that litigation choices drive outcomes
more than anything observable on the face of the patent. That is, whom
the parties sue and other choices are more likely to predict patent invalidity
than any measurable aspect of the patent.
Patent quality is a slippery concept; there are many ways to consider
quality, such as disclosure and technology breadth.1 Perhaps the simplest
measure of quality is whether a patent is valid, that is, whether it is novel,
nonobvious, and otherwise compliant with the Patent Act.2 Validity
quality can only be observed when a court finally adjudicates a patent, but
patents are never adjudicated valid. Instead, courts merely rule that they
will survive this challenge, and the next time could be different.
1. See R. Polk Wagner, Understanding Patent-Quality Mechanisms, 157 U. PA. L.
REV. 2135, 2138 (2009) (describing the difference between quality and value); see also
Michael Risch, Patent Portfolios as Securities, 63 DUKE L.J. 89, 137–51 (2013) (surveying
various methods for valuing patents).
2. See Michael Risch, Everything Is Patentable, 75 TENN. L. REV. 591, 594 (2008)
(“Thus, this Article assumes that maximum social value is obtained by the issuance of only
those patents that are justified under the statute.”); Wagner, supra note 1, at 2138.
68
RISCH FOR PRINT (DO NOT DELETE)
[VOL. 52: 67, 2015]
10/30/2018 2:20 PM
A Generation of Patent Litigation
SAN DIEGO LAW REVIEW
Moreover, most cases sett (...truncated)
