Analysis of Patient Trolls / Patent Assertion Entities

Name
Course
Instructor
Date
Research Paper
To: [Insert]
From: [Insert]
Date: [Insert]
Subject: Analysis of patient trolls/ patent assertion entities
Patent troll/ patent assertion entity
Patent protections have enhanced innovation, but the recent lawsuits on the Apple-Samsung patent has highlighted the challenges of these litigations. Patent trolls are the abusive patent lawsuits, which have exploited loopholes in the patent system to bring patent litigation. The patent trolls buy patents for the sole purpose of getting royalties from owners of patented technologies (FTC) (O’Brien). Patent trolls/ patent assertion entity (PAE) have been a problem as the current patent law does not require those bring lawsuits to explain in detail. Typically, the lawsuits are based broadly defined patents seeking to prove that other companies that have infringed on the patents. The cost of patent trolls is potentially enormous from the attorney fees to cost of defending the patent suits.
One of the challenges with the PAEs is that companies simply acquire vague patents, and then use the threat of litigations (O'Brien). The patent trolls have mostly affected the tech companies, and more so Apple, which has aggressively enforced patents to avoid litigation (O'Brien). Additionally, the patent trolls seek royalties from such companies, and at times they request ore than the worth of the patents (O'Brien). The difference between the PAEs and patent violations is that the intent of the patent trolls is to seek more money, and this may stifle innovation (O'Brien). The patent troll litigations have increasingly targeted the big tech companies, which may simply potential lawsuits out of court to avid length litigation cases and legal costs.
Issues and rulings in the case  HYPERLINK "/opinions/15pdf/14-1513_db8e.pdf" \t "_blank" Halo Electronics, Inc. vs. Pulse Electronics, Inc., et al.
In the case, the Supreme Court looked into the question of enhanced damages related to patent infringement under No. 14-1520, while section 284 of the Patent Act allows the patentee to receive damages up to three times of the amount assessed.
Facts
Halo Electronics Inc, lodged a case against Pulse Electronics, Inc arguing that Pulse infringed on its patents, which contained transformers mounted on circuit boards. Halo designed the transformers and patented them. Pulse sold the electric products in the US and the international market, and Halo sought damages for patent infringement. Halo was awarded heighted damages as Pulse willfully infringed the company’s products, but then the district court determined that infringement did not meet the willful requirement as is the case for heighted damages. The Seagate test to determine willfulness, is based on subjectivity and objectivity prongs. The objective reckless prong is that the patent owner needs to “show by clear and convincing evidence that the infringer acted despite an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of a valid patent (Supreme Court 1). The subjective prong then highlights that the patentee needs to demonstrate that the infringer understood the risk of infringement (Supreme Court 5).
Issue
Do patent holders have ...