PublishedFebruary 28, 2013

Judge Rader misses the point

At IPWatchdog Gene Quinn covers a speech by Federal Circuit Chief Judge Rader at the Association of University Technology Managers in San Antonio.  According to the post, the Chief Judge said matter-of-factly

Yes, I do think there is a litigation abuse problem.” Game on! Chief Judge Rader would go on to discuss the blackmail-like shake-downs that are plaguing the industry and giving the patent system an unjustified bad name.

Yet Judge Rader later stated:

There is nothing wrong with the patent system. The patent system has a narrow focus…. It’s not a competition program…. The things that the patent system is criticized for is not its job.

It is hard to read Chief Judge Rader’s comments to say anything other than ‘yes, there is a problem, but it isn’t our problem.’  But we cannot so easily foist responsibility for the patent litigation crisis off onto some faceless ‘other’ bad actor in some other discipline.

Patent assertion entities now comprise more than 60% of patent litigation.  These are IP claims brought by IP lawyers under IP law and often appealed to a specialized IP court.  This is not a generic litigation problem.  We have met the enemy, and he is us.

circle 09

Matt Schruers

Josh Landau

Patent Counsel, CCIA

Joshua Landau is the Patent Counsel at the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA), where he represents and advises the association regarding patent issues.  Mr. Landau joined CCIA from WilmerHale in 2017, where he represented clients in patent litigation, counseling, and prosecution, including trials in both district courts and before the PTAB.

Prior to his time at WilmerHale, Mr. Landau was a Legal Fellow on Senator Al Franken’s Judiciary staff, focusing on privacy and technology issues.  Mr. Landau received his J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center and his B.S.E.E. from the University of Michigan.  Before law school, he spent several years as an automotive engineer, during which time he co-invented technology leading to U.S. Patent No. 6,934,140.

Follow @PatentJosh on Twitter.

More Posts

Much Ado About Injunctions: Redux

Patent policy debates have raged since 2006 when the Supreme Court decided eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006). Critics of eBay frequently cite the decision as having effectively en...

Tuesday Markup of Litigation Funding Legislation

Although John Squires is busy destroying the PTAB—as of last week, he has now gone 0 for 34 on allowing institution of IPR petitions he reviews—the story in Congress is more positive. Tomorrow, t...

Step 1: Destroy IPR.  Step 2: ???  Step 3: Profit.

Last week, the USPTO issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) containing major changes to the institution process for inter partes review.  Combined with other changes made by the USPTO, inc...

Subscribe to Patent Progress

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.