Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) - Patent Registry Scams; Australian Patent Office - Warning!Unsolicited IP Services; Belgian Patent Office - Warning to inventors about fraudulent registration services, in (in Dutch) or (in French) (with link to a Decision of January 14, 2005 of a Belgian Appeal Court (Brussels, R.G. 2003/AR/2192 and 2003/AR/2356) (pdf) - in French)
World Patent Marketing (WPM), founded in 2014 by Scott G. Cooper was a fraudulent Miami-based corporation that presented itself as an invention-promotion firm but was later determined by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to defraud investors seeking to market inventions.
The LOT (License on Transfer) Network is a nonprofit organization that was formed to combat patent assertion entities (PAEs), also known as patent trolls, by cross-licensing patents that fall into the hands of PAEs.
The company has been described as the country's largest and most notorious patent trolling company, [2] the ultimate patent troll, [3] and the most hated company in tech. [4] In 2009, the firm launched a prototyping and research laboratory, Intellectual Ventures Lab , [ 5 ] which attracted media controversy when the book SuperFreakonomics ...
But a growing share of the lawsuits [6] is coming from non-practicing entities (NPEs) – also called patent trolls – which acquire patents for the sole purpose of licensing and asserting their patent rights. In fact, NPE litigation grew from 2.6 percent of filed cases in 2000 to 16.6 percent of filed cases in 2007.
RPX clients receive a license to all of the patents and associated rights aggregated in the RPX portfolio. Over time, RPX clients receive perpetual license to the patents held when they became members or purchased after they joined, as well as any patents sold during their membership. The service is structured on an annual membership.
For premium support please call: 800-290-4726 more ways to reach us
Federal Trade Commission v. Qualcomm Incorporated [1] was a noted American antitrust case, in which the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) accused Qualcomm's licensing agreements as anticompetitive, mainly because their practices excluded competition and harmed competitors in the modern chip market, which according to the FTC, violated both Section 1 and Section 2 of the Sherman Act.