Patent Infringement Litigation: Filings on the Rise

031312_2012_PatentInfri1

Terry Ludlow of ChipWorks recently created a time-series chart showing the number of US patent lawsuits per quarter. I have reproduced the chart with permission. [LINK]

The headline here: More patent lawsuits are being filed now than ever – even more than in the heyday of the false-marking litigation. Just as a caution – the recent rise in the number of lawsuits does not actually mean that there is more patent litigation going one. Rather, a substantial portion of the increase in Q4 2011 is due to the new joinder rules that force a patent holder to file separate lawsuits against similar defendants rather than bundle them all into a single action.

Thus, as an example, last week the patent holding company NovelPoint Security filed 30+ separate patent infringement lawsuits in the Eastern District of Texas. In the past, NovelPoint might have instead pursued all of those actions within a single complaint.

* * * * *

The NovelPoint Security patents both include David C. Reardon of Springfield Illinois as the sole inventor. See U.S. Patents 6,212,635 and 5,434,562. Neither patent is listed as assigned within the USPTO assignment database. Reardon is an interesting character – he is an electrical engineer but is much better known as a pro-life / anti-abortion advocate. Reardon runs the Eliot Institute that he founded. The patents themselves focus on computer security systems using public/private key encryption and claim a 1997 priority date based upon a provisional patent application filed

56 thoughts on “Patent Infringement Litigation: Filings on the Rise

  1. “Your reproductive right ends at the point God says it should end.”

    Really fixed.

    God already decided this issue. We mere humans don’t get to change it.

    Whether you like it or not.

  2. “Rights” in and of themselves do not protect you.

    Even today, with all of ouor government and the “rights” theat you seem to think flow only from tehat government, a bandit can still deprive you of life, liberty and property.

    Happens every day. Multiple times.

  3. Wee People, tell me about your hypothetical right to life, liberty and property in a time before governments.  What protected you against bandits?  What you say to these bandits when they take everything you have?  Where are your rights then?

  4. Natural rights do not exist. Rights are creatures of law and are created by law. Law is an artifact of government.

    We the People disagree.

  5. There is no constitutionally protect right to life against murderL”

    I can’t seem to find privay in the Constituion either.

    Let me check again. Nope. No there.

  6. One of the problems we have is some conflate the natural rights in the Declaration with constitutionally protected rights. They are not the same.

    A person in the wild may theoretically have a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, but in actuality, the first band of bandits that happens by can and problem end that myth pronto by killing him, and taking his property and women.

    Natural rights do not exist. Rights are creatures of law and are created by law. Law is an artifact of government.

    What we have in our constitution is the right to life, liberty and property that are protected from government deprivation. Nothing protects us from being killed by another person except state law, such as the law against murder.

    There is no constitutionally protect right to life against murder. However, many here and many conservatives just don’t seem to understand the distinction.

  7. The baby has a constitutionally protect right (to life) against the GOVERNMENT taking its life.

    A mother killing her baby for one reason or another may be murder, but it certain is not depriving the baby of any constitutionally protected rights because the action of the mother is a private action.

  8. “This is a country that deserves the ridiculous government it gets. Truth is we’re all, even the very poor, too coddled to care for taking responsibility for our country. And the political “leadership” revels in it.”

    I agree 100% with this.

  9. “or more laws requiring women to get vaginally probed before getting an abortion”

    We don’t need a law to force them to get vaginally probed before getting an abortion, they already were… badump shhh.

  10. “His brand of thinking about individual liberty ”

    You mean “actual liberty”? Lulz.

    “At times, it makes one gag.”

    Yes, it does make one gag that America doesn’t care for liberty one dam whit. They just want “freedom” without “responsibility”, just like you’re qqing for in this very thread. There’s a video up that shows a college classroom of poliscitards being asked by their teacher at what point they would take back their country by arms if their government gets out of control. Not one person in the whole of them had any clue even when called on individually. You’ll recall that this country was founded by people who knew exactly how much it would take for them to take up arms.

    This is a country that deserves the ridiculous government it gets. Truth is we’re all, even the very poor, too coddled to care for taking responsibility for our country. And the political “leadership” revels in it.

  11. I don’t think you’re going to be getting out of your residency any time soon doctor IANAE.

    Also, if we’re going for def. 2, since obviously the organisms are of the same species, then you admit that these parasitic babies are persons?

    Go d save the parasitic baby persons! Lulz.

  12. “You forgot that the unprotecteds have that same constitutionally protected right as well. That is, if they are not killed.”

    The 14th Amendment refers to all persons BORN in the United States. So no, a fetus doesn’t have Constitutional rights.

    Could you please spend your energy on any one of these ridiculous “personhood” efforts going on around the country, or more laws requiring women to get vaginally probed before getting an abortion, and leave the discussion on this site to patent law? We’d all appreciate it.

    Thanks.

  13. In all this discussion, you seem to ingore that a constitutionaly protected right is involved: liberty.

    Are you F’n serious?

    You forgot that the unprotecteds have that same constitutionally protected right as well. That is, if they are not killed.

    I think you deny that the right exists at all.

    Are you F’n serious?

    I think NCINAR has the right focus, an even more basic concern: being alive to enjoy any other rights that may be there for them. It’s pretty simple, if you don’t make it past the first point of even being allowed to live, then what good are all those other rights?

    You need to snap to and get with the picture of what is really happening (I have a great sonogram for you).

  14. 6, I find it interesting that Paul is running as a Republican. His brand of thinking about individual liberty seems to be an anathema to conservatives who are all the time talking about freedom!!!

    At times, it makes one gag.

  15. “In all this discussion, you seem to ingore that a constitutionaly protected right is involved: liberty.”

    Everyone ignores Ron Paul bro. Nobody wants that pesky “responsibility” that comes along with “liberty”.

  16. In all this discussion, you seem to ingore that a constitutionaly protected right is involved: liberty. 

    We really cannot have a meaningful discussion unless we can both agree that such a right exists.

    I think you deny that the right exists at all.

  17. I’m not sure a fetus is “another species” but this whole thread has degenerated to the point of absurdity anyways. How long before H!tler is mentioned?

    I’m also not sure that a fetus doesn’t give “any useful or proper return” to its “host.”

    But let’s just throw it out there: H!tler.

  18. Why must you stray from the subject (rise of patent litigation filings) on this thread, MM to address an issue irrelevant to this thread? I could also go on ad infinitum on my pro-life views (but won’t) because that’s not the subject we’re supposedly discussing here. And look at the irrelevant commentary you’ve spawned. Please stick to the actual subject on this thread.

  19. Doctor IANAE has reclassified babies as parasites.

    parasite, noun:

    1. an organism that lives on or in an organism of another species, known as the host, from the body of which it obtains nutriment.

    2. a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others.

  20. “Why not treat the poor girl for her parasite?”

    Parasite? Lulz. Doctor IANAE has reclassified babies as parasites.

  21. “There is no moral justification for taking away someone else’s one chance to live.”

    I agree, which is why I should be granted a personal harem.

  22. “Since when is being accountable for one’s actions considered “punishment?””

    Since President Obama said so.

  23. Exactly.

    Again, any person who believes that this life is all there is, and with that understanding THEN STILL decides to take away someone else’s one chance to live, is cruel and despicable.

    There is no moral justification for taking away someone else’s one chance to live.

  24. MM’s rant is typical of the angry ath eist. Nothing new here.

    How about this MM – if this life is all there is, who is anyone to take away that unborn person’s one chance to live??? Very cruel to do that to someone else.

    Remember folks, if something is not dead, it’s alive. And fet us or whatever other designation is a stage in a person’s development, not a separate “thing.” I’ll leave it to the rest of you to connect the dots to see what kind of cruel person takes away another living person’s one chance to live.

  25. Since when is being accountable for one’s actions considered “punishment?”

    Since when are patients refused medical treatment for clearly self-induced ailments?

    We don’t turn away the smoker with lung cancer, or the fat guy with congestive heart failure. Why not treat the poor girl for her parasite? Sure, she’s responsible for her actions, but do you also want her to be responsible for failure to mitigate?

  26. But religion clothes itself in that garb.

    Once again, pay close and careful attention to exactly who is playing the religion card. You keep bringing up religion and I keep telling you that it is not a part of the discussion. You are attempting to create a smokescreen. You have completely ignored my point about morality and the law.

    rights, they exist to protect one from goverment

    Why would anyone believe rights to be so limited? Again, your argument is stilted as you attempt to artificially cordon the discussion to a protection of rights from the government. No one is making that argument except for you. Thus this is a strawman.

    draw the line between religion (you may say it is morality…

    Why would you restate what I said and say I may say something that I have explicitly disagreed with? This is yet another strawman.

    On the whole, your answer is a non-answer. You do not address the points I made and you offer insubstantial, incomplete and misleading dialogue on rights and the State. You have ignored my post completely.

    Please review my previous post and supply an answer on point.

  27. No, morality is not necessarily the same as religion.  True.  But religion clothes itself in that garb.
     
    Regarding, rights, they exist to protect one from goverment.  When you, my neighbor, begin telling me how I can live my life, you invade my privacy.  You have no liberty interest that you are protecting.  You are denying me liberty, and to the extent you use government power to enforce your invasion of my privacy, you begin to invade a constitutionally protected right.
     
    That being said, societies can set mininum standards that we all must live within.  But there is a balance between these invasions of privacy and liberty and the rights of society to enforce minimum standards.
     
    Unfortunately, the Supreme Court has been called upon to draw the line between religion (you may say it is morality, but most of us case see the wolf in sheeps clothing) and liberty.  On the whole, they are doing a good job. 

  28. Your argument is weak and stilted.

    It is stilted as you are the one introducing concepts that no one else has introduced and then you are arguing against the concepts you introduced.

    That’s a classic strawman argument.

    These concepts you introduce are as if you are speaking from someone else’s prearranged script, and you are trying to put the discussion of “personal responsibility” on certain evocative terms. Speak plainly. When the issue is correctly phrased as death for the conveinence of others, it does not sound so noble.

    Your argument is weak in several related dimensions.

    1) The State can and does intrude into the family. There is no carte blanche and your allusion to the Roman Empire is seriously misguided. The State can and does intrude into the family when conditions of truance, menace or neglect show themselves. These conditions are far removed from the extremes of the “Roman kill” or taking of life that you attribute to the power of the Roman family. And this taking of life is outlawed young or old. We, society, put morality into play in the law and the rules we establish.

    2) Morality is not religion and is suffused throughout the law. Your attempt at conflating morality and religion is outright denied. The state does have police powers and uses those powers for a determined right versus wrong, based on enunciated principles, which is exactly what morality is.

    3) Pay close and careful attention to exactly who is trying to play the religion card. It is only the two arguing for the “reproductive rights.” Both you and MM should understand that religion or the “invisible sky daddy” have nothing to do with the stated postion or with “being accountable for one’s actions.” Each of your attempts have rightly failed.

    4) You keep on talking about a citizen’s rights and “privacy,” and you keep on forgetting to include the rights and “privacy” of viable life that cannot protect itself. What about them? Do they not deserve the very same rights and privacy that others have?

  29. I don’t have a right to tell you whether or not you should have a kid, how to raise your kid, or anything like that. I hope that you would also acknowledge that you have no right to tell me the same.

    Just because we agree to form a government to protect our individual rights, we never intended to give up or right of privacy and I never intended to give you a right to interfere with my privacy.

    The way I live my life and the way you live your live are nobody else’s business.

    We have basic rights as citizens and among the most basis is the right of privacy.

    Again, if you insist that you have a right to interfere with the the basic liberty of another citizen in his or her private choices about which he or she has absolute authority and independence, where do you get these rights? The right to liberty, after all, is protected by the constitution from governmental interference.

    In contrast, nothing in the constitution grants anyone the right to impose his religion or his morality on any other person. But that is what you are attempting to do, is it not?

  30. sluts must be punished

    Are you F’n serious?

    Since when is being accountable for one’s actions considered “punishment?”

  31. And who is the say that a mother and a father will not protect their own kids?

    Are you F’n serious?

    How many abortions for convenience are there?

    It obviously is not true… by the Catholic Church

    Are you F’n serious?

    Which part is not true? And why drag the Catholic Church into this discussion? The Catholic Church has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.

    citizens had rights

    Are you F’n serious?

    Well I’m glad the “citizens” had rights. In modern times, people have rights and slavery is against the law. And the benefit of cosiety is not reserve dto the class of “citizen.”

    no obvious link that I know of

    Are you F’n serious?

    Of course not. You only see what you want to see, that the brutality was necessary given that the Roman citizen was surrounded by enemies. Guess what, mankind has always been surrounded by enemies. Such is not an excuse for barbarism in the modern world.

  32. And who is the say that a mother and a father will not protect their own kids? The concept that a state can interfere with the private decisions of the family, once established in principle, extends every decision that a family might make.

    Regarding the civilization argument, this is an argument made time and again by the Catholic Church and by other proponents of the right-to-life. It obviously is not true.

    Is quite true that the Roman civilization was brutal, but necessarily so given that it was surrounded by enemies who are equally as brutal. But among themselves, citizens had rights and they were respected. Furthermore, there is no obvious link that I know of between the Roman respect for family rights and Roman brutality.

  33. No Consequences Is Not A Right

    Translation: sluts must be punished because my invisible sky daddy said so.

  34. Who is going to accord the respect of individual liberty to those that cannot protect themselves?

    I would like to think that society has matured since the time of the Romans. That protecting those that cannot protect themselves would be seen as a height to be achieved and not relegated to a dusty and dark corner, hiding behind some ill-shaped sense of “personal responsibility” when the person is choosing abortion after being irresponsible.

    The Romans had slaves, gladiator circuses, genocide, and were not a model for disciplined use of power.

    No one is making an argument that our civilization depends on government regulating abortion, so your “rebuttal” is a rebuttal against a strawman.

    The proponents of the right to life do not have it backwards. It is you that has it backwards, reserving for some that which you deny others. Death for the conveinence of others does not sound so noble when phrased as directly as it should be phrased.

  35. The voice of a libertarian:

    I believe in liberty. I think the government should butt out when it comes to issues that are essentially private. Among the most private are issues involving sex lives, reproduction and collateral issues.

    In the Roman Republic and Empire, families had the final say on whether their own children lived or died, even as adults. Now if such a great a civilization as the Romans had can trust families to behave responsibly with that kind of power, I surely believe our society will not collapse if we allow mothers to decide whether to have a child or not. The argument that our civilization depends on government regulating abortion is rebutted by the evidence of history. Rather, I believe, our civilization depends upon the respect we accord individual liberty. The proponents of the right to life have it backwards, IMHO.

  36. Yah Yah Yah! If you do not agree with me, by definition you are “pro nothing”, you are only “anti” that thing I favour.

  37. “Dennis, would it be possible to see a line added to the graph for the equivalent number of suits under either the pre- or post- AIA change?”

    Not without you fund a couple of weeks of temp admin time. What you seek is valuable, but would likely require actually examining each complaint to figure out which ones would have been bundled…

  38. No Consequences writes, “many of the lives he endeavors to save are women”.
    - Approximately half?

    No Consequences writes, “If you are that concerned about the consequences of having sex, then don’t have sex.”.
    - Living in one’s mum’s over-garage apartment is not very conducive to having much of that stuff going on, anyways…

  39. and anti-woman’s

    I am pretty sure that many of the lives he endeavors to save are women.

    Your “reproductive” right ends at the point another life is involved. If you are that concerned about the consequences of having sex, then don’t have sex.

  40. Watch how the mainstream media starts screaming about the increasing number of patent lawsuits.

  41. a substantial portion of the increase in Q4 2011 is due to the new joinder rules that force a patent holder to file separate lawsuits against similar defendants rather than bundle them all into a single action

    Dennis, would it be possible to see a line added to the graph for the equivalent number of suits under either the pre- or post- AIA change?

  42. Reardon is an interesting character – he is an electrical engineer but is much better known as a pro-life / anti-abortion advocate.

    More accurately, he’s an anti-reproductive rights and anti-woman’s rights advocate.

Comments are closed.