The other change that receives less attention is the Medimmune v Genentech case in 2007, which changed the playing field such that it forced many potential licensors to initiate a lawsuit to avoid getting preemptively sued for declaratory judgement:
http://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?art...
This decision also correlates with another jump in lawsuits in 2007 found by other studies. Not sure why this dataset does not reflect that jump.
Also, I'm very curious about the PWC result that patent troll litigation awards are rising. I've followed a bunch of NPE cases (many of which have been discussed here), and I consistently find that trolls get much lower awards than they seek. Case in point, the TQP vs NewEgg trial where, even though they won, they got only half of the damages they sought. And that's at the higher end... From hearsay, some attorneys claim the average is around 10% of the damages sought.
What I'm finding is that accusing the plaintiff of being a "troll", regardless of whether that accusation has merit, has an automatic impact on the damages received, if at all the plaintiff prevails.
But then most of the cases I've followed have been in ED Texas. Maybe the higher awards come from other districts, e.g. Delaware?
The other change that receives less attention is the Medimmune v Genentech case in 2007, which changed the playing field such that it forced many potential licensors to initiate a lawsuit to avoid getting preemptively sued for declaratory judgement: http://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?art...
This decision also correlates with another jump in lawsuits in 2007 found by other studies. Not sure why this dataset does not reflect that jump.
Also, I'm very curious about the PWC result that patent troll litigation awards are rising. I've followed a bunch of NPE cases (many of which have been discussed here), and I consistently find that trolls get much lower awards than they seek. Case in point, the TQP vs NewEgg trial where, even though they won, they got only half of the damages they sought. And that's at the higher end... From hearsay, some attorneys claim the average is around 10% of the damages sought.
What I'm finding is that accusing the plaintiff of being a "troll", regardless of whether that accusation has merit, has an automatic impact on the damages received, if at all the plaintiff prevails.
But then most of the cases I've followed have been in ED Texas. Maybe the higher awards come from other districts, e.g. Delaware?