Patent Trolls: Moral Panics, Motions in Limine, and Patent Reform
37 Pages Posted: 25 Apr 2016
Date Written: April 22, 2016
This Article provides the first empirical study of the use of the term "patent troll" by U.S. media-specifically, examining leading newspapers and online publications. The study offers several key findings: (1) First, starting in 2006, the U.S. media surveyed used "patent troll" far more than any other term, despite the efforts of scholars to devise alternative, more neutral-sounding terms. The tipping point was the combination of the controversial Blackberry and eBay patent cases in 2006 — prior to that time, "patent holding company" was the most popular term. (2) Second, the media more often portrayed such patent entities in a one-sided, negative light with very little analysis or empirical support. For example, few works provided statistics or discussion of any studies to support their negative portrayal. Practically no articles mentioned the lack of a working requirement in U.S. patent law, which permits all patentees not to practice their inventions. These findings provide support for the recent judicial decisions that have barred, at trial, the use of the term "patent troll" as unfairly prejudicial.
Keywords: patent troll, non-practicing entity, NPE, patent assertion entity, PAE, patent monetization entity, PME, patent aggregator, patent holding company, moral panics, motion in limine, Apple, Intellectual Ventures
Suggested Citation: Suggested Citation