'Patent Purchases and Litigation Outcomes' by Mark A. Lemley,
Erik Oliver,
Kent Richardson,
James Yoon and
Michael Costa
comments
We test empirically whether purchased patents that are litigated fare better or worse than litigated patents that aren’t purchased. We identified every case filed in 2009 and 2010 that had a definitive winner and had information on the presence or absence of an assignment or other transfer. That left us with 516 decisions. Of those 516 decisions, the patentee won 125, or 24.2%. Of the patents, 280, or just over half, had been transferred before the litigation began.
We find that overall, patentees won 21% of the time with patents that had been sold before litigation began, and 28% of the time with patents they developed in-house. But combining all patent cases may obscure important differences between plaintiffs who buy patents and those who don’t. Dividing our study into entity types produces a surprising result. Operating companies fare better when they assert patents they developed in house. They won 33% of the time when asserting their own patents, but only 23% of the time when asserting purchased patents. By contrast, inventor-owned NPEs -- but not patent assertion entities -- do better with purchased patents. The results also differ by area of technology
'Moral Rights: Exploring the Myths, Meanings and Misunderstandings in Australian Copyright Law' by Francina Cantatore and Jane Johnston in (2016) 21(1)
Deakin Law Review 71 comments
This article examines how moral rights are treated in Australian publishing contracts, and whether this approach is consistent with the expectations of authors, journalists and academics. Although, in theory, moral rights cannot be sold or assigned in Australia, the apparent wide scope for exceptions raises questions of whether there is any real protection afforded to creators under the Copyright Act 1968 (Cth), notably in circumstances that relate to pressure on creators to accept contractual terms in order to get published. Additionally, Australian case law reflects some uncertainty about the traditionally accepted non-economic nature of moral rights. The article examines recent case law in this field, found in Meskenas, Perez and Corby, and considers the literature associated with development of moral rights in Australia. It then presents the findings of a two-part study of moral rights in Australia; first through the results of interviews with 176 Australian authors, journalists and academics, followed by an analysis of 20 publishing contracts. It concludes that — in some, but not all, instances — a combination of the exceptions allowed under the Act and practical exigencies have diluted the unique character of authors’ moral rights and have created an environment of uncertainty.
