Monday Must-Reads

Sharp Decline in US Patent Litigation so far in 2014 (via IPWatchdog)

Lex Machina analysis on early 2014 patent litigation.

“In January 2013, there were 490 new patent complaints filed. The number of new patent cases filed in January 2014 was 322. This represents a 34.3% drop in the number of new patent filings year to year, and represents the lowest number of new patent litigations since October 2011.”

New Weapon in Intellectual Property Wars (via WSJ)

WSJ article on the power of the PTAB. Some companies love the board, but some critics think that it is too quick to toss out patents.

“The Patent Trial and Appeal Board is a little known but powerful authority that often allows a company embroiled in a lawsuit to skip the question of whether it infringed a patent—and challenge whether the patent should have been issued in the first place.”

Viacom and Google finally settle long running copyright lawsuit against YouTube (via The Verge)

What started as a $1 billion lawsuit turns into a settlement where likely no money exchanged hands.

“Google and Viacom jointly announced today that they have agreed to settle a seven year old lawsuit in which Viacom accused YouTube of allowing its users to upload copyrighted content like films and television shows.”

Patent Data Missing in Troll Debate (via EE Times)

“Right now it’s like the fear of the unknown — we actually don’t know that much about patents despite a large amount of study”

Nokia Handset Sale to Microsoft Delayed (via NYT)

“The American technology giant said on Monday that its 5.4 billion euro, or $7.5 billion, takeover of Nokia’s handset business was now expected to close in April.”

Once seeking $4B, ‘troll’ gets $2.7M (via Chicago Daily Law Bulletin)

“Innovatio initially said its patents pertaining to Wi-Fi chips were worth thousands of dollars for every wireless router Cisco sold; a judge ruled it was closer to 10 cents for every unlicensed Wi-Fi chip; the settlement valued the patents around 3 cents for every unlicensed chip.”

“Holderman’s ruling — only the second in the country to define a RAND rate — created a complex hypothetical negotiation between the patent owner and a licensee. It takes into account the number of patents involved in a particular technology, their relative value, the date at which the negotiations would have taken place (in this case, 1997, when Wi-Fi came out) and a long list of other factors.”