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

          Thursday, October 19, 2017

          UC Hastings Law Receives $1 Million Gift from Shanin Specter

          Gift from renowned trial attorney will be used to build the new “Shanin Specter Courtroom” and to support multiple areas within the College.
          Tuesday, October 17, 2017

          How a decade of high-flying, high-stakes government jobs led 3L Christa Hall to law school at UC Hastings

          She's protected teams and aircraft on high-risk missions around the world, served as associate director and trip manager for President Barack Obama, and helped deal with crises like cyberhacks and the Ebola epidemic. Now she's preparing for a new way to serve.
          Thursday, October 05, 2017

          When a monkey takes a selfie, who owns the copyright?

          Andrew Dhuey '92 and the infamous “Monkey Selfie” case.
          Wednesday, October 04, 2017

          Professor Dave Owen receives 2017 Rutter Award for Teaching Excellence

          When his parents denied access to all TV except PBS wildlife specials, it sparked a life-long environmental law interest in our “infectiously enthusiastic” professor.
          Tuesday, October 03, 2017

          Thinkers & Doers: September 2017

          National Law Journal’s 2017 Winning Litigators -- Uber’s “Hell” program -- Foie gras off the menu in CA -- Comments on the Hash Lab Murder Case -- Pao Effect fighting the bamboo ceiling -- Top 10 LLM Program in California -- New neighborhood hotspots -- and much more
          Go to News Archive