Typology of the Patent Troll Business

Patent trolls have many faces, since the media uses this expression in various ways. The patent troll phenomenon thus seems to be an ambiguous term that is discussed in several directions. This paper reveals that a patent troll as such has no distinct shape or appearance. Our analysis redeems a troll classification solely from firms’ market position, such as being non-practicing, and shows that a patent troll business can only be defined by the respective practice to enforce IPR. Using 10 case studies, of which five are treated in detail, the analysis reveals a distinct typology of IPR enforcement mechanisms and suggests a framework to assess the troll business. This paper is furthermore able to identify the nature of troll behavior to be: a) a best practice to enforce IP rights and b) a strategy that may create costs for affected industries. The differentiated troll analysis further reveals negative but also positive effects of the troll business on incentives to innovate.

[1]  John W. Creswell,et al.  Research Design: Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches , 1997 .

[2]  David Salant.  Formulas for Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory royalty determination , 2007, 2007 5th International Conference on Standardization and Innovation in Information Technology.

[3]  Anne Layne-Farrar,et al.  Elves or trolls? The role of non-practicing patent owners in the innovation economy , 2012 .

[4]  R. Merges.  The Trouble with Trolls: Innovation, Rent-Seeking, and Patent Law Reform , 2010 .

[5]  Mark A. Lemley,et al.  Patent Holdup and Royalty Stacking , 2006 .

[6]  Benjamin H. Diessel.  Trolling for Trolls: The Pitfalls of the Emerging Market Competition Requirement for Permanent Injunctions in Patent Cases Post- eBay , 2007 .

[7]  K. Eisenhardt.  Building theories from case study research , 1989, STUDI ORGANIZZATIVI.

[8]  Ray Carroll,et al.  “Get Rich, or Die Trying”: Lessons from Rambus' High‐Risk Predatory Litigation in the Semiconductor Industry , 2005 .

[9]  Jean Hartley,et al.  Case study research , 2004 .

[10]  Mark A. Lemley,et al.  Are Universities Patent Trolls? , 2007 .

[11]  John M. Golden.  'Patent Trolls' and Patent Remedies , 2007 .

[12]  Anne Layne-Farrar,et al.  Licensing Complementary Patents: ‘Patent Trolls’, Market Structure, and ‘Excessive’ Royalties , 2009 .

[13]  Markus Reitzig,et al.  PATENT SHARKS AND THE SUSTAINABILITY OF VALUE DESTRUCTION STRATEGIES. , 2008 .

[14]  K. Eisenhardt,et al.  Politics of Strategic Decision Making in High-Velocity Environments: Toward a Midrange Theory , 1988 .

[15]  James F. McDonough,et al.  The Myth of the Patent Troll: An Alternative View of the Function of Patent Dealers in an Idea Economy , 2007 .

[16]  Matthew B. Miles,et al.  Qualitative Data Analysis: An Expanded Sourcebook , 1994 .

[17]  Colleen V. Chien.  Of Trolls, Davids, Goliaths, and Kings: Narratives and Evidence in the Litigation of High-Tech Patents , 2009 .

[18]  R. Schmalensee.  Standard-Setting, Innovation Specialists and Competition Policy , 2009 .

[19]  Jay P. Kesan,et al.  Transaction Costs and Trolls: Strategic Behavior by Individual Inventors, Small Firms and Entrepreneurs in Patent Litigation , 2009 .

[20]  Matthew J. Sag,et al.  Patent Reform and Differential Impact , 2006 .

[21]  Gerard N. Magliocca.  Blackberries and Barnyards: Patent Trolls and the Perils of Innovation , 2007 .

[22]  John W. Creswell,et al.  Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches , 2010 .

[23]  Markus Reitzig,et al.  On sharks, trolls, and their patent prey—Unrealistic damage awards and firms’ strategies of “being infringed” , 2007 .

[24]  Henry Mintzberg.  An Emerging Strategy of "Direct" Research , 1979 .

[25]  Knut Blind,et al.  Trends in ICT standards: The relationship between European standardisation bodies and standards consortia , 2008 .

[26]  J. Henkel,et al.  Patent Trolls on Markets for Technology - An Empirical Analysis of Trolls' Patent Acquisitions , 2010 .

[27]  Sannu K. Shrestha.  Trolls or Market-Makers? An Empirical Analysis of Nonpracticing Entities , 2009 .

[28]  M. Reitzig,et al.  Collateral damage for R&D manufacturers: how patent sharks operate in markets for technology , 2010 .

[29]  Marc Rysman,et al.  A NAASTy Alternative to RAND Pricing Commitments , 2011 .

[30]  Carl Shapiro,et al.  Navigating the Patent Thicket: Cross Licenses, Patent Pools, and Standard Setting , 2000, Innovation Policy and the Economy.

[31]  S. Besen,et al.  Standards, Intellectual Property Disclosure, and Patent Royalties after Rambus , 2009 .

[32]  Stephen Guth,et al.  Beware Patent Trolls , 2005 .

[33]  James Bessen,et al.  The Private and Social Costs of Patent Trolls , 2011 .

[34]  F. Jell,et al.  Contributing to Markets for Technology? A Comparison of Patent Filing Motives of Individual Inventors, Small Companies and Universities , 2011 .

[35]  R. Yin.  Case Study Research: Design and Methods , 1984 .

[36]  D. Teece.  Managing Intellectual Capital , 2002 .

[37]  Geoff Walsham,et al.  Interpreting Information Systems in Organizations , 1993 .

[38]  R. Stake.  The art of case study research , 1995 .

[39]  M. Benassi,et al.  Playing in between: Patent Brokers in Markets for Technology , 2009 .

[40]  Sylwia Męcfal.  Recenzja książki. Robert K. yin, Case Study Research. Design and Methods (fourth Edition), thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, 2009 , 2012 .

[41]  Alan J. Devlin.  Standard-Setting and the Failure of Price Competition , 2009 .

[42]  Knut Blind,et al.  Firms' cooperative activities as driving factors of patent declaration on technological standards , 2011, 2011 7th International Conference on Standardization and Innovation in Information Technology (SIIT).

[43]  Josh Lerner.  Trolls on State Street?: The Litigation of Financial Patents, 1976-2005 , 2005 .