Patent troll 2422384 225408748 2008-07-13T15:03:46Z Edcolins 51336 removed unsourced material '''Patent troll''' is a [[pejorative|pejorative term]] used for a person or company that enforces its [[patent]]s against one or more alleged [[patent infringement|infringer]]s in a manner considered unduly aggressive or opportunistic. A related, less pejorative expression is '''non-practicing entity''' (NPE) which describes a patent owner who does not manufacture or use the patented [[invention]].<ref name="miranda">Jones, Miranda. Casenote. [http://www.law.gmu.edu/assets/subsites/gmulawreview/files/14-4/documents/7Jones.pdf Permanent injunction, a remedy by any other name is patently not the same: how eBay v. MercExchange affects the patent right of non-practicing entities] (eBay v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 126 S. Ct. 1837, 2006.) 14 [[Geo. Mason L. Rev.]] 1035-1070 (2007)</ref> ==Definition and etymology== "Patent troll" is a controversial [[neologism]], susceptible to multiple definitions. Among them is a party that: *"Purchases a patent, often from a [[bankruptcy|bankrupt]] firm, and then [[lawsuit|sues]] another company by claiming that one of its products infringes on the purchased patent;"<ref name="wordspy">{{cite web|url=http://www.wordspy.com/words/patenttroll.asp|title="patent troll"|publisher=wordspy|accessdate = 2007-07-26}}</ref>. *Enforces patents against purported infringers without itself intending to manufacture the patented product or supply the patented service;<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.ipfrontline.com/depts/article.asp?id=10854&deptid=4 |title=''On 'Patent Trolls' and Injunctive Relief'' |author=Alexander Poltorak}}, ipfrontline.com, [[May 12]] [[2006]]</ref><ref>{{cite web | url=http://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponet.nsf/0/63A726D28B589B5BC12572DB00597683/$File/EPO_scenarios_bookmarked.pdf| title=EPO Scenarios for the Future], 2005, Glossary|publisher=European Patent Office|accessdate = 2007-07-27}}</ref> *Enforces patents but has no manufacturing or research base;<ref>Morag Macdonald, {{cite web|url=http://www.thelawyer.com/cgi-bin/item.cgi?id=116783&d=122&h=24&f=46|title=''Beware of the troll''|publisher=The Lawyer|date=[[September 26]] [[2005]]|accessdate = 2007-07-27}} </ref> or *Focuses its efforts solely on enforcing patent rights.<ref name="Williams, Gardner">{{cite journal|publisher=North Carolina Bar Association, Intellectual Property Law Section|date=[[April 3]] [[2006]]|title = Basic Framework for Effective Responses to Patent Trolls,|author=Danielle Williams and Steven Gardner|url=http://www.kilpatrickstockton.com/publications/downloads/IPLinksApril2006.pdf}}</ref> The term was used as early as 1993 to describe companies that file aggressive patent lawsuits.<ref name="wordspy"/> The Patent Troll was depicted and originally popularized in "The Patents Video" which was released in 1994 and sold to hundreds of corporations, universities and governmental entities. In "The Patents Video," an unsuspecting victim is surprised by the Patent Troll who strategically positioned himself to collect patent licensing revenue. [http://www.ogandthak.com];<ref> {{cite web|url=http://www.iptoday.com/news-article.asp?id=372&type=ip|title=''The Original Patent Troll Returns'' |publisher=Intellectual Property Today who, by the way, sold copies of "The Patents Video" in 1994 on consignment |date=May 08, 2007}}</ref> Years later, it was again popularized in 2001 by [[Peter Detkin]], former assistant [[general counsel]] of [[Intel]],<ref>{{cite news | author=Brenda Sandburg|title=You may not have a choice; Trolling for Dollars|publisher=The Recorder|date=[[July 30]] [[2001]]|url=http://www.phonetel.com/pdfs/LWTrolls.pdf}}</ref> who applied it to entities that purchase patents at low prices from [[Inventor (patent)| inventors]], rather than inventing or actively developing a technology themselves, then broadly assert the patents across an industry to encourage [[Settlement (litigation)| settlements]].<ref name="become">{{cite web|date=[[December 5]] [[2005]]|accessdate = 2007-07-27|publisher=Ziff Davis|url=http://www.cioinsight.com/article2/0,1540,1902291,00.asp|author=R.G.|title=Has the Enemy of Patent Trolls Become One}}</ref> ==Causes== Patent trolls may buy patents cheaply from entities not actively seeking to enforce them. For example, a company may purchase hundreds of patents from a technology company forced by [[bankruptcy]] to [[auction]] its patents.<ref name="auctions"/> By another account, patent trolls stake out technologies they have not yet developed then wait for independent inventors to create and market the products, suing only after the newcomers are locked into the technology. This practice is criticized as [[rent seeking]] behavior.<ref name="patently">{{cite web|title=Patently-O|author=Dennis Crouch|date=[[May 12]] [[2006]]|url=http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2006/05/what_is_a_paten.html|accessdate = 2007-07-26}}</ref> The cost of defending against a patent infringement suit, as of 2004, is typically $1 million or more before trial, and $2.5 million for a complete defense, even if successful.<ref name="pirates"/>. Because the costs and risks are high, [[defendant]]s may settle even non-meritorious suits they consider [[Frivolous litigation| frivolous]] for several hundred thousand dollars.<ref name="pirates"/> The uncertainty and unpredictability of the outcome of [[jury trial]]s also encourages settlement.<ref name="patworldJune2007">{{cite news | publisher=Patent World|date=June 2007 | title=Waiting for Godot|author=Justin Watts}}</ref>. It has also been suggested that distortions in the patent market, such as those caused by long patent application pendency, promotes patent trolling.<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.iam-magazine.com/blog/Detail.aspx?g=e84ef872-f9b9-448c-bbd4-0bdce2de184f |title=Mutual recognition raises its head as EPO boss says backlog won't be mastered |publisher=Intellectual Asset Management Magazine |author=Joff Wild |date=[[2008-05-08]] |accessdate=[[2008-06-19]]}}</ref> ==Effects== A core criticism of patent trolls is that "they are in a position to negotiate [[license| licensing]] fees that are grossly out of alignment with their contribution to the alleged infringer’s product or service",<ref>Matthew Sag and Kurt W. Rohde, {{cite web|url=http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=925722|title=''Patent Reform and Differential Impact''}}, Northwestern University, [[August 21]] [[2006]].</ref> not their non-practising status or the possible weakness of their patent claims. The risk of paying high prices for after-the-fact licensing of patents they were not aware of, and the costs for extra vigilance for competing patents that might have issued, in turn increases the costs and risks of manufacturing. Some claim that patent trolls benefit the patent system and the economy, suggesting the more neutral term "patent dealer", or simply calling them what they are, for example a licensor, [[patent pool]] or a [[patent holding company]]. Patent licensing is considered [[Competitiveness| procompetitive]] because it encourages [[investment]] in bringing new products to [[market]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/public/guidelines/0558.htm#t23|title=Antitrust Guidelines for the Licensing of Intellectual Property| author = US Department of Justice|accessdate = 2007-07-27|date=[[April 5]] [[1995]]}} </ref> By creating a [[secondary market]] for patents, patent trolls make the ownership of patents more liquid, thereby creating incentives to innovate and patent.<ref> {{cite news|url=http://online.wsj.com/article_email/SB114187357457393357-lMyQjAxMDE2NDAxOTgwNzkzWj.html|author=Don Clark |title=Inventors See Promise In Large-Scale Public Patent Auctions|publisher=the Wall Street Journal Online|date=[[March 9]] [[2006]]|accessdate = 2007-07-27}}</ref><ref name="The Myth of the Patent Troll"/>. Aggregating patents in the hands of specialized licensing companies facilitates access to technology by more efficiently organizing ownership of patent rights.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.ipfrontline.com/depts/article.asp?id=9899&deptid=8 |author=IPFrontline Staff|title=Making Innovation Pay|publisher=ipFrontline.com|date=[[March 11]] [[2006]]|accessdate = 2007-07-27}}</ref><ref> Nicholas Varchaver,[http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2006/07/10/8380798/index.htm ''Who's afraid of Nathan Myhrvold?'', [[Fortune Magazine]], [[June 26]] [[2006]]] </ref> ==Mechanics== Patent trolls operate much like any other company that is protecting and aggressively exploiting a [[patent portfolio]]. However, their focus is on obtaining additional money from existing uses, not from seeking out new applications for the technology. They monitor the market for possibly infringing technologies by watching popular products, news coverage and analysis. They also review published [[patent application]]s for signs that another company is developing infringing technology, possibly unaware of their own patents. They then develop a plan for how to proceed. They may start by suing a particularly vulnerable company that has much to lose, or little money to defend itself, hoping that an early victory or settlement will establish a precedent to encourage other peer companies to acquiesce to licenses. Alternately they may attack an entire industry at once, hoping to overwhelm it. An individual case often begins with a perfunctory infringement [[complaint]],<ref name="pirates"/> or even a mere threat of suit, which is often enough to encourage settlement for the nuisance or "threat value" of the suit by purchasing a license to the patent. In the United States, suits are often brought in [[United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas]], known for favoring [[plaintiff]]s and for expertise in patent suits.<ref>{{cite news | url=http://www.technologyreview.com/InfoTech-Software/wtr_16280,300,p1.html | publisher=Technology Review | date=[[February 6]] [[2006]] | accessdate = 2007-07-07 | title=A Haven for Patent Pirates | author=Sam Williams}}</ref> The cost of defending such a suit as of 2004 is typically $1 million or more before trial, and $2.5 million for a complete defense, even if successful.<ref name="pirates"/>. Because the costs and risks are high, [[defendant]]s may settle even non-meritorious suits they consider [[Frivolous litigation| frivolous]] for several hundred thousand dollars.<ref name="pirates"/> The uncertainty and unpredictability of the outcome of [[jury trial]]s also encourages settlement.<ref name="patworldJune2007">{{cite news | publisher=Patent World|date=June 2007 | title=Waiting for Godot|author=Justin Watts}}</ref>. If it wins, the plaintiff is entitled as [[damages]] an award of at least a "reasonable" [[royalty]] determined according to the norms of the field of the patented invention.<ref> {{cite web | title=US patent law, 35 USC 284 | url=http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/appxl_35_U_S_C_284.htm#usc35s284}} </ref> Patent trolls are at a disadvantage in at least two ways. First, patent owners who make and sell their invention are entitled to awards of lost profits. However, patent trolls, being non-manufacturers, typically do not qualify.{{Fact|date=March 2008}} Further, patent owners' rights to bar infringers from manufacture, use, or sale of technologies that infringe their patents has recently been curtailed in the court decision [[eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C.]]. Rather than automatically granting an injunction, the US Supreme Court stated that Courts must apply a standard reasonableness test to determine if an injunction is warranted. Writing in Forbes magazine about the impact of this case on patent trolls, writer Jessica Holzer concludes: "The high court's decision deals a blow to patent trolls, which are notorious for using the threat of permanent injunction to extort hefty fees in licensing negotiations as well as huge settlements from companies they have accused of infringing. Often, those settlements can be far greater than the value of the infringing technology: Recall the $612.5 million that Canada's Research in Motion forked over to patent-holding company NTP to avoid the shutting down of its popular BlackBerry service." <ref>{{cite news|title=Supreme Court Buries Patent Trolls|publisher=Forbes.com|date=[[May 16]] [[2006]] | accessdate = 2007-07-27|author=Jessica Holzer|url =http://www.forbes.com/home/businessinthebeltway/2006/05/15/ebay-scotus-patent-ruling-cx_jh_0516scotus.html}}</ref> ==Defenses== Some believe patent trolls have an unfair advantage over manufacturers since they are relatively immune to the typical defensive tactic large entities use against small patent plaintiffs, because the cost of litigation tends to fall more heavily on an accused infringer than on a plaintiff with a contingency-fee lawyer, and because trolls have an almost-unrestricted ability to choose their preferred plaintiff-friendly forums, most prominently the Eastern District of Texas.<ref name="pirates">{{cite journal |author=Craig Tyler |date=[[September 24]] [[2004]] |publication=Texas Lawyer |url=http://www.wsgr.com/PDFSearch/09202004_patentpirates.pdf |title=Patent Pirates Search For Texas Treasure | accessdate = 2007-07-27}}</ref> Such defense tactics can be perceived as both good and bad. Among the common techniques rendered ineffective are monitoring patent activities of competitors to avoid infringing patents (since patent trolls are not competitors, productive companies usually have no way to find out about the troll or its patents until after significant investments have been made to produce and market a product); going on the offensive with [[counterclaim]]s that accuse the patent plaintiff of infringing patents owned by the defendant (the mutual threat often leads the parties to arrive at a mutually beneficial [[cross-licensing]] arrangement); or a "[[Scorched_earth#In_business|scorched earth]]" defense designed to drive up litigation costs (which is equally ineffective because patent trolls plan for and have the finances to fully litigate a case.<ref name="pirates"/> In fact, some are able to draw on [[hedge fund]]s and [[institutional investor]]s to finance their patent cases.<ref name="forbes">{{cite news|publisher=Forbes Magazine|author=Nathan Vardi|date=[[May 7]] [[2007]]|title=Patent Pirates|url=http://www.forbes.com/free_forbes/2007/0507/044.html|accessdate = 2007-07-27}}</ref>). Patent "pooling" arrangements where many companies collaborate to bring their patented knowledge together to create new products are also inapplicable to patent trolls because they operate outside the system. Substantial companies that attempt over-reaching patent litigation are subject to losing their patent rights to a defensive claim of [[patent misuse]]. However, defendants find it difficult to charge patent trolls with misuse because the [[antitrust]] violations typically involved require significant market power on the part of the patent holder.<ref>{{cite web|title=Antitrust Considerations In Patent Enforcement: A Patent Doesn’t Mean Grant Of Monopoly Power|author=Jose Cortina|publisher=Local Tech Wire|url=http://infringement.blogs.com/philip_brooks_patent_infr/2006/07/antitrust_consi.html | date=[[July 26]] [[2006]]|accessdate = 2007-07-27}} </ref> Nevertheless, manufacturers do use various tactics to limit their exposure to patent trolls. Most have broader uses as well for defending their technologies against competitors. These include: *''[[Design around]]s'' can be a defense against [[patent troll]]s. The amount of license fee that a patent troll can demand is limited by the alternative of the cost of designing around the troll's patent(s).<ref> Golden, John M., [http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=991698 ''Patent Trolls' and Patent Remedies''], Texas Law Review, Vol. 85, p. 2130, 2007.</ref> *''[[Patent watch]].'' Companies routinely monitor new patents and patent applications, most of which are published, to determine if any are relevant to their business activities. [[Image:Woodward light bulb.JPG|thumb|Early Woodward light bulb patent purchased by Thomas Edison to preclude challenges]] *''[[Clearance search]].'' A standard practice is to perform a clearance search for patents or pending patent applications that cover important features of a potential product, before its initial development or commercial introduction. For example, a search by [[Thomas Edison]] uncovered a prior patent by two [[Canada|Canadian]] inventors, [[Henry Woodward (light bulb)|Henry Woodward]] and [[Mathew Evans]] for carbon filament in a non-oxidizing environment, ({{US patent|181613}}), the type of light bulb Edison wanted to develop. Edison bought the patent for US$5,000 ($100,000 in 2006 US currency) to eliminate the possibility of a later challenge by Woodward and Evans. *''[[Opposition proceeding]]''. In Europe, third parties may conduct a [[Opposition procedure before the European Patent Office| proceeding]] to oppose overly broad patents. There is a more limited process in the United States, known as a [[reexamination]]. As an example, [[Research In Motion]], filed reexaminations against broad [[NTP, Inc.]] patents related to [[BlackBerry]] technology. *''[[Litigation]]''. Whereas some companies acquiesce to a troll's demands, others go on the offensive by challenging the patents themselves, for example by finding [[prior art]] that invalidates their [[patentability]]. They may also broadly challenge whether the technology in question is infringing, or attempt to show patent misuse. If successful, such a defense not only wins the case at hand but destroys the patent troll's underlying ability to sue. Knowing this, the patent troll may back down or lessen its demands. *''[[Settlement (law)|Early settlement]]''. An early settlement is often far less expensive than litigation costs and later settlement values. *''[[Patent infringement insurance#Patent infringement insurance|Patent infringement insurance]]''. Insurance is available to help protect companies from inadvertently infringing a third party's patents. In order to counteract problems caused by patent trolls a group of 11 high-tech companies including [[Cisco Systems]], [[Ericsson]], [[Google]], [[Hewlett-Packard]], and [[Verizon]] formed in 2008 Allied Security Trust with the goal of identifying and obtaining key patents prior to falling into the hands of patent trolls. <ref> Rick Merritt, [http://www.eetimes.com/news/latest/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=208802271 ''Patent pools may flow in wake of latest alliance''], EE Times, 07/02/2008 11:08 PM EDT. Consulted on July 6, 2008. </ref>. ==Criticism of the term== * ''[[Vagueness]]''. The term "patent troll" is criticized as vague and its use as subjective.<ref name="patently"/> * ''Overbreadth''. Defining trolls broadly as patent holders that do not practice or promote the patented invention would include [[patent holding company|holding companies]], most US universities and many individual inventors, for example, [[Thomas Edison]], in the definition.<ref name="The Myth of the Patent Troll">{{cite web|url=http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=959945|title=The Myth of the Patent Troll: An Alternative View of the Function of Patent Dealers in an Idea Economy|publisher= Emory Law Journal|urle=http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=959945|accessdate = 2007-07-27|date=2007|author=JAMES F. MCDONOUGH III}}</ref> Large businesses typically have separate licensing departments, and may have separate patent holding companies, that are distinct from their research and development operations. * ''Misapplied''. Accusations of trolling may be conflated with broader criticisms of the patent office, or of patent rights in general, by those who claim the patent system is "broken",<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.madison.com/wsj/mad/business/index.php| author=Judy Newman|date=[[May 9]] [[2006]]|title=Innovators fear the patent trolls}}</ref> when in fact problems like poor quality patents, and [[patent thicket]]s, are issues distinct from patent trolling.<ref name="The Myth of the Patent Troll"/> Critics of the term argue that it is misguided to use it to criticize the patent system, because there are already mechanisms in place to restrain troll-like behavior. The two primary factors are the limited patent term and the obligation to disclose.<ref>{{cite web|accessdate = 2007-07-27|url=http://www.rkmc.com/The_Case_for_Abandoning_the_Term_Patent_Troll.htm |title=The Case for Abandoning the Term 'Patent Troll'}}</ref> However, others, such as former Assistant Attorney General Viet Dinh, make the case that that the need for patent reform is made all the stronger by the existence of patent trolls who exploit vulnerabilities in the existing patent law.<ref>"[http://www.patentfairness.org/pdf/Patent%20Reform%20-%20Protecting%20Property%20Rights%20and%20the%20Marketplace%20of%20Ideas%20(Viet%20D.%20Dinh)(12%2003%2007).pdf] Professor Viet Dinh, former Assistant Attorney General for Legal Policy, Dec. 3, 2007</ref> * ''[[Political agenda]]''. The term is used in a partisan matter by companies seeking to gain benefit at [[trial]] or by [[public relations]] by accusing competitors of being trolls, and also those objecting to or wanting to change the current patent laws on [[equity (law)|equitable]] grounds<ref> {{cite web|url=http://www.wral.com/business/local_tech_wire/biotech/story/1167734/|publisher=Local Tech Wire|accessdate = 2007-07-27|title=Examining Patent Troll Debate: Should They Be An Endangered Species?| author=Caroline Horton Rockafellow}} </ref>Former [[Microsoft]] Chief Technology Officer [[Nathan Myhrvold]] alleged that use of the expression "patent troll" is primarily a public relations tactic that large [[corporations]] use to intimidate individual inventors in an effort to tilt the playing field in their favor.<ref> {{cite web|accessdate = 2007-07-27|author=Nathan Myhrvold|url= http://online.wsj.com/article/SB114368437650611883.html|publisher=Wall Street Journal|title=''Inventors Have Rights, Too!''}}</ref> Parties that themselves actively enforce and license patents they do not practice, may criticize other companies for trolling when it suits their interest to do so. <ref> {{cite web|url= http://news.com.com/Google,+Yahoo+bury+the+legal+hatchet/2100-1024_3-5302421.html|title=Google, Yahoo bury the legal hatchet|publisher=CNET |date=[[August 9]] [[2004]]|accessdate = 2007-07-27|author=Stefanie Olsen}}</ref> * ''Legality of conduct''. Private ownership of [[property]] generally, and [[intellectual property]] in particular, is a well-established right that cannot be overturned in the United States without raising significant concerns.<ref> {{cite web|url=http://mcsmith.blogs.com/eastern_district_of_texas/files/patent_pirates_exist_only_in_neverland.pdf|author=Michael Smith|date=[[October 11]] [[2006]]|publisher=Texas Lawyer|accessdate = 2007-07-27|title=''Patent Pirates only exist in Neverland''}}, Texas Lawyer, [[November 11]] [[2004]] </ref>. Under US law patent owners need not commercialize the [[invention]] to enforce their patents. They may charge any amount they wish as a royalty to others in exchange for a right to make, use or sell the patented invention, or to not use or license the patent at all (UK and European patent law, by contrast, contains provisions for [[compulsory license]]s, something that ameliorates patent trolling). Moreover, the owner of a patent need not be the inventor. Patents are legally [[transfer (patent)|transferrable]] in the sense that they can be bought, sold and licensed to entities other than the inventor(s).<ref name="auctions">{{cite web|url=http://news.zdnet.com/2100-9595_22-6045371.html|title=Patent auctions: Lawyer's dream or way of the future?|publisher=zdnet|author=Michael Kanellos|date=[[March 3]] [[2006]]|accessdate = 2007-07-27}}</ref> == Non-practicing entity == A non-practicing entity (NPE) is "a [[patent]] owner who does not manufacture or use the patented [[invention]], but rather than abandoning the right to exclude, an NPE seeks to enforce its right through the negotiation of licenses and litigation." <ref name="miranda"/> According to Miranda Jones, {{cquote|Non practicing entities ("NPEs") were initially identified by the oft invoked pejorative term "patent troll" because few people, if any, saw any value in the actions of NPEs. However, [she] argues for the use of the term "NPE" because "patent troll" unfairly vilifies the actions of NPEs. Contrary to the implication of "patent troll," NPEs are not a scourge of the patent system requiring a judicial cure. Rather, NPEs engage in activities useful to the patent system.<ref name="miranda"/>}} ==See also== * [[Design around]] * [[Independent inventor]] * [[Patent ambush]] * [[Patent misuse]] * [[Patent pirate]] * [[Patent thicket]] * [[Rent seeking]] * [[Richard Frenkel]], once anonymous author of the ''Patent Troll Tracker'' blog * [[Submarine patent]] ==References== <!--This article uses the Cite.php citation mechanism. If you would like more information on how to add references to this article, please see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Cite/Cite.php --> {{reflist|2}} ==Other sources== * Maggie Shiels, ''Technology industry hits out at "patent trolls"'', [[BBC News]], [[June 2]] [[2004]], [http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3722509.stm] * Lorraine Woellert, ''A Patent War Is Breaking Out On The Hill'', [[Business Week]], July, 2005, [http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_kmbus/is_200507/ai_n14783315] * Joe Beyers, ''Rise of the patent trolls'', [[CNET News.com]], [[October 12]] [[2005]] [http://news.com.com/Rise+of+the+patent+trolls/2010-1071_3-5892996.html] * Raymond P. Niro, ''The Patent Troll Myth'', Professional Inventors Alliance web site, [[August 4]] [[2005]] [http://www.piausa.org/patent_reform/articles/raymond_p_niro_08_04_2005] * Raymond P. Niro, ''Who is Really Undermining the Patent System – “Patent Trolls” or Congress?'', [http://jmripl.com/Publications/vol6/issue2/niro.pdf 6 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 185] (2007). * Jennifer Kahaulelio Gregory, "The Troll Next Door", [http://www.jmripl.com/Publications/Vol6/Issue2/Gregory.pdf 6 J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L. 292] (2007). * Simon Phipps, ''On Cane Toads, Fire Ants and Patents'', SunMink, [[February 13]] [[2005]], [http://blogs.sun.com/webmink/entry/on_cane_toads_fire_ants] *Bakos, Tom, "''Patent Trolls''", Insurance IP Bulletin, Vol. 2005.3, June 2005 [http://marketsandpatents.com/IPB%2006152005.mht] * Ferrill, Elizabeth, "Patent Investment Trusts: Let's Build a PIT to Catch the Patent Trolls", N.C. J. of Law & Tech., Vol 6, Iss. 2: Spring 2005.[http://www.jolt.unc.edu/Vol6_I2/pdf/Ferrill%204-23-05.pdf]. *Kurt Leyendecker, "Patent Trolls!", Control, Protect & Leverage, A Leyendecker & Lemire Blog, [[March 14]] [[2006]]. [http://www.lld-law.com/2006/03/patent-trolls.html] *{{cite news|title=Hooray for the Patent Troll!|publisher=[[IEEE Spectrum]]|author=Steven Rubin|date=March, 2007}} [[Category:Patent law|Troll, patent]] [[de:Patent-Troll]] [[fr:Patent troll]] [[he:טרול פטנטים]] [[nl:Patenttroll]] [[ja:パテント・トロール]] [[sv:Patenttroll]]