Patent Attorneys Love Apple

Fordham has a new study on smartphone patents and their assertion. Here is the money quote:

The most frequent plaintiff in the dataset [is] Apple. Apple has a uniquely aggressive litigation history when compared to the rest of the market leaders and Apple's stance may have effected a more general increase in litigation within the market. First, Apple has filed more lawsuits than other market share leaders. Second, Apple began asserting its design patents related to its smartphone in 2011 and prior to these lawsuits, design patent suits were vary rare in the market. Finally, patent infringement litigation saw a substantial increase after Apple's broad patent litigation was filed in 2011. Apple's aggressive litigation posture may be spurring litigation throughout the market and may be motivating competitors to acquire additional patents in order help them strengthen their defensive position.

See THE IMPACT OF THE ACQUISITION AND USE OF PATENTS ON THE SMARTPHONE INDUSTRY (WIPO under a Special Services Agreement) at /media/docs/2013/08/clip_study.pdf.

29 thoughts on “Patent Attorneys Love Apple

  1. 29

    To answer my own question: Just went to the CLIP site and they write that the study was published by WIPO in June of 2013.

  2. 28

    I see that the date on the study is December, 2012. Is it just now being released or had we all missed it?

  3. 27

    Apple was just protecting their ideas from competitors who can easily copy and use those ideas for their own profit. Besides, Apple is one of the first to build up and made popular the use of smartphones.

  4. 26

    LOL – quite incorrect (per usual), sirt.

    My point (while repetitive) to Malcolm are extremely substantive.

    Thanks again for your ‘concern.’

  5. 25

    Seeing as 70% of your posts consist of you blathering repetitive content-free drivel at your boytoy Malcolm, let’s just be real generous here and say, “I know you are but what am I?”…

  6. 22

    My only advice is that you should get a manager for your act. It’s clear you’ve been handling yourself too long…

  7. 19

    Ah-hah! Try something else that might be either a) original, or b) funny. You are failing on both accounts.

  8. 14

    Sorry, if that’s also a joke, I didn’t get it.

    As for me, I’m trying to save anon from itself. It’s slapping itself so hard on the back it’s probably gonna dislocate a shoulder…

  9. 12

    “Then note exactly who it is that routinely destroys the vacuous rantings of the anti-patent little circle on this blog.”

    Anony, anoooony-Crockett, king of the blogosphere. (hopefully you know the melody on your own).

    Why, yer jest aboot a legend in your own mind!

  10. 11

    Good to hear. I agree you started using the left and right attacks for patents. But, you also regularly attack me for little pieces of blue sky falling and being a wiper. But, my predictions and pessimism have been well founded, and the three henchmen are potentially a death blow. The SCOTUS may save us, but from what I have seen of the henchmen that Obama appointed we can expect years of ignorant violent opinions that belong in the former USSR.

    One thing that is interesting is that the Fed. Cir. gives the anti-patents a way to get henchmen on the judiciary that will be focused against patents. The SCOTUS has too many issues that you may get a pro or anti and the patents aren’t the top priority.

  11. 10

    As for ‘Democrat,’ that’s a red herring. Both democrats and republicans share a debilitating flaw: they are (self-serving) politicians. Since the patent system is under attack from both the Left and the Right, both sides of the political fence share equal culpability in my eyes.

  12. 9


    Respectfully, just because my tactics are different than yours does not mean that I underestimating “the epic destruction that is going on now. The death blows are coming.”

    Please note exactly who it was that first championed the ‘attacks from the Left and from the Right’ that have been echoed not only here, but increasingly on other patent blogs (and no credit to 6 in his attempts to use a time machine and have the likes of Rader or Quinn says things ‘first’ that I have actually put forth first).

    Then note exactly who it is that routinely destroys the vacuous rantings of the anti-patent little circle on this blog.

  13. 8

    Of course, it was early, Glass Steagall. But, note that it was the Democrat that gave the final death blow to our financial system as a system for the U.S. and not for the few rich bankers.

    You, anon, way under estimate the epic destruction that is going on now. The death blows are coming. What I see is slowly but surely the anti-patent crowd winning. The only way to gain back territory is to come after people like Lemley. Lemley should be disbarred and expelled from Stanford. He knowingly lied in a law journal and did not cite counter opinions from respectable law professors.

    But, you see, the big corp knows how to exploit the low life of this country like Lemley.

  14. 7


    Do you mean Glass Steagall?

    And yes, agency capture is a real threat. It is no less amusing as it is ironic that agency capture has included players from the Left and the Right (academia and Big Business).

  15. 6

    You see the latest bloody blow was the recent henchmen appointed to the Fed.Cir. That is like Clinton repealing Glass Waxman despite every stable banker telling him that it would lead to disaster.

  16. 5

    We are watching the epic destruction of our patent system just as the regulations on the banks were slowly but surely dismantled.

    It is interesting to watch how it unfolds. Every dweeb (people like IANADAFE) thinking somehow they are part of “something.” Every academic trying to get a paper published and money to their law practice on the side. Every psychotic circuit court judge trying to fix imaginary problems.

    What a strange world we live in.

  17. 4

    Here’s another money quote:

    “A large company with several thousand patents may be able to overwhelm small company plaintiffs attempting to assert a small number of patents. This risk is likely to lessen the ability (or willingness) of smaller companies to defend their intellectual property.”

    NPE breaks the Large Corp stranglehold. Anyone still wondering about the ‘Troll’ hysteria?

  18. 3

    The logical question should be if Apple stockholders will have a net benefit from all this worldwide patent litigation: in ultimate infringement damages recoveries, competitive product injunctions, de-featuring of competitive products that will significantly affect their sales, and avoidance of FRAND royalties, vis a vis non-litigation license royalties. So far, one has the impression of judical decisions that may already be, or quickly will be, “designed around” so as to defeat significant competition restaint goals? If so, it might be interesting to see a stockholder reaction to the cumulative total of the attorney fees after a few more years. Would it be enough multi-millions to have paid a dividend instead? Meanwhile, other potential competitors will benefit from all patent claims eliminated in all the PTO in rem post grant proceedings spawned by all the litigation.

  19. 2

    It appears that you are assuming that asserting one’s rights must be bad.

    You are aware that the approved legal manner of asserting one’s patent rights is through litigation, right?

    Now if the story had been about Apple asserting bogus patent rights, then maybe your Pro-Infringer bias would have been substantiated.

Comments are closed.