Bingo - the USPTO did move to implement a regional patent office system, which theoretically makes them more efficient in terms of research and reviews. But we’re talking about a bureaucracy here so you get what you budget for.
The problem with the court system is the ability to cherry pick venues by the plaintiffs in rocket docket jurisdictions such as East Texas or Delaware. I feel bad for this doctor in the article but the issue of NPEs is real.
Quote: “The problem with the court system is the ability to cherry pick venues by the plaintiffs in rocket docket jurisdictions such as East Texas or Delaware. I feel bad for this doctor in the article but the issue of NPEs is real.”
It is very real.
There are many things Congress could have done to stop trolls. First, which is on the table now, is to reform the venue statute for patent cases and treat them like every other case.
Second, amend the damages and fees section of the Act. If the Court finds a plaintiff or DJ defendant is an NPE (they do it anyway when deciding on injunctive relief under eBay), then said plaintiff/DJ defendant: 1) is not eligible for lost profits or a reasonable royalty; 2)instead is only eligible for some statutory damages (as in copyright); 3) is not eligible to obtain injunctive relief and 4) must pay fees and costs if the patent is held non-infringed or invalid.
(Caveat, the Plaintiff’s bar would fight this tooth and nail. This is probably why the sledge hammer was taken to the patent act instead of the scalpel.)
How do you go about distinguishing an inventor with a patent who cannot afford to manufacture his invention, from a troll?
Are not both NPEs, non practicing entities?
Wouldn’t the small inventor be deprived of collecting a license fee simply because he doesn’t have the capital to produce his invention?