Patent troll claims to own Bluetooth, scores $15.7M verdict against Samsung

Re:Patent troll claims to own Bluetooth, scores $15.7M verdi... by derekp7 on Wednesday February 18, 2015 @10:31AM (#9068980)

For point 2, there are a few factors that go into distinguishing a non-manufacturer patent holder vs. a patent troll. First, is the use of low quality patents. A low quality patent is one or more of the following:

* Overly broad

* Describes the problem space, and claims all possible solutions to that problem

* Written in such a way that you can't implement the covered technology based on the patent description

* Covers existing practice, or what is destined to become standard practice in a new field, but worded in such a way to make it appear more novel

* Doesn't pass the non-obviousness test (need to be careful with this one, because a lot of patent-worthy inventions are obvious in hind site)

Also, a patent troll typically waits till a technology is well established before suing, in order to maximize payout (see submarine patents). Another soft clue to identifying a patent troll, is if the party being sued had came to knowledge of the covered technology by way of the patent or patent holder/inventor. If it is independent invention, then that could indicate that the patent fails the non-obviousness test.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Patent troll claims to own Bluetooth, scores $15.7M verdi... by gyc on Wednesday February 18, 2015 @01:08PM (#9069967)

It seems like most of your points are already addressed in patent law. A good patent litigation counsel on the opposing side should be able to dig up prior art to invalidate any overly broad or obvious claims, and should be able to invalidate any patent that does not sufficiently teach how to make and how to use the invention due to lack of enablement.

[ Parent | on HN ]