RPX was founded on the principle of efficient markets, and we have always believed that it is far more cost-effective to transfer patent value between users and owners through a transparent, collaborative, open market rather than litigation. Some recent analysis—supported by data published in our inaugural RPX 2014 Patent Marketplace Report—quantified just how true this is.
Read full postAt RPX we have long wondered if patents alleged or declared to be SEPs are actually as essential as claimed. So we set out to analyze how SEPs have fared in judicial settings.
We began by identifying a universe of 380 patents that, since 2005, were 1) asserted in a district court case or International Trade Commission investigation and 2) either declared essential to a standard-setting organization or alleged to be a SEP in a complaint (patent owners not participating in a standard-setting organization often claim that their inventions were included in a particular standard). We then measured how those patents fared in those adversarial proceedings, testing both infringement and validity.
Read full postReporting on the recent flurry of federal court decisions invalidating software patents, the Wall Street Journal’s Ashby Jones likened the results to declaring “open season” on such patents. Clearly the courts are viewing claims of computer-implemented invention differently in the wake of the Alice decision. But we think a better analogy than unrestricted slaughter…
Read full post