Thursday, April 09, 2015

          Feldman and Frondorf: Patent Trolls Are Crashing The IPO Party

          Professor Robin Feldman and Research Fellow Evan Frondorf have published a new study demonstrating that companies are often approached by patent trolls shortly before or after an IPO.
          Sample alt tag.

          An IPO is a watershed moment for a growing and successful company, offering the promise of newly raised capital and extensive publicity — not to mention a big payoff to the stakeholders who have given years of time and effort to the company. But unwanted patent infringement litigation may spoil the celebration.

          For years, the information technology community has been wary of assertion activity by monetizers, also known as patent trolls or non-practicing entities (NPEs), against companies preparing to go public, creating an unwelcome obstacle during one of the most visible and vulnerable times of a company’s development.

          A new study by UC Hastings Professor Robin Feldman and Research Fellow Evan Frondorf shows that this fear is justified: companies frequently receive patent demands  — in the form of lawsuits, threats, or similar requests — shortly before and after their IPO. These findings suggest that NPEs are tactically suing growing companies when they are at their most vulnerable, forcing settlements regardless of the merits of a claim.

          The study is forthcoming in the peer-reviewed journal, the Stanford Technology Law Review, and is available here. 

          In “Patent Demands and Initial Public Offerings,” Feldman and Frondorf undertook the first empirical examination of this potentially strategic behavior used by NPEs. They surveyed lawyers at recently public companies about their exposure to patent demands surrounding major funding moments in a company’s development.

          “A significant majority of information technology companies received patent demands near their IPO,” says Feldman. “And almost all of that activity originated from patent NPEs.”

          Why do NPEs choose to target companies during the initial public offering period? One potential explanation focuses on the highly scrutinized public disclosures that companies must make before an IPO.

          “Patent trolls thrive on extracting settlements from startup companies that don’t have the time or money to litigate, even if the claims are dubious,” explains Frondorf. “An IPO is new leverage that can be used against a company trying to avoid the negative effects pending litigation might have on its offering price or public reputation.”

          “The results are consistent with monetizers issuing demands based on the economics of patent litigation, rather than on the legitimacy of the claims,” agrees Feldman. “It’s more evidence of the need for comprehensive patent reform.”

          Key Findings

          Through their survey of attorneys at newly public companies, Feldman and Frondorf found evidence of heightened demand activity launched against soon-to-be or recently public companies:

          • Nearly half of companies received patent demands either shortly before their IPO or in the year following its completion.
          • In the year following the IPO, half of affected companies said they received four or more patent demands, with more than 80% receiving demands from an NPE.
          • In comparison, almost no companies received demands near another important funding moment — obtaining the first round of venture capital funding.

          The effects were particularly pronounced for information technology companies:

          • More than half of information technology received patent demands near their IPO, while none received demands near their first venture funding round.
          • Almost all demands near IPOs originated from NPEs.

          For more information about Feldman and Frondorf’s work, please see the Institute for Innovation Law. For media inquiries, please contact Alex A.G. Shapiro, 415.581.8842 or shapiroa@uchastings.edu.

          Go to News Archive

          Share this Story

          Share via Facebook
          Share via TwitterShare via EmailPrint Friendly Version

          Other Recent Stories/ RSS

          Tuesday, February 07, 2017

          Civil Rights Lawyer Zahra Billoo ’09 Is Fighting President Trump’s “Travel Ban”

          As leader of a Council on American-Islamic Relations chapter, she is standing up for the rights of Muslim Americans in court and in the media.
          Monday, February 06, 2017

          Hadar Aviram assumes the presidency of the Western Society of Criminology

          Congratulations to UC Hastings Professor Hadar Aviram, who is set to begin her term as the president of the Western Society of Criminology.
          Wednesday, February 01, 2017

          Statement from Dean Faigman: Deans Letter to California Supreme Court re California Bar Exam

          Today a group of 20 deans of ABA-accredited California law schools submitted a letter to the California Supreme Court, calling upon it to “exercise its legal jurisdiction over the California State Bar to adjust its scoring methods to bring them in line with the nation’s at large.”
          Wednesday, February 01, 2017

          Thinkers & Doers: January 2017

          THE RESISTANCE -- Haiku for Law Students -- Judge Gorsuch’s jurisprudence -- A Populist Crusade Against Corporate Greed -- THE MOST READ HBR ARTICLE OF ALL TIME -- Mom bias at work -- Will Trump’s refugee "ban" survive? -- Alumni recording artists -- and much more
          Monday, January 30, 2017

          Statement from Dean Faigman: President Trump's Executive Order re Travel

          The UC Hastings’ seal carries the words fiat justicia -- Let Justice Be Done. This motto is not a hollow promise; it is who we are and what we do.
          Go to News Archive