I don't think it is black & white. For example, with VRNG you have a company that buys patents and creates them too. VRNG created the IPE patents they used to sue Google. They have previously created patents with their India R&D department, and they currently are creating patents with their partnership with Va Tech. At the same time, VRNG purchased patents from Nokia which they used to successfully negotiate settlements with ADT & Tyco. And these 500 patents are also the basis for other active lawsuits against ZTE and Belkin and ASUS. They also have different patents that they neither bought nor created. Microsoft agreed to assign ownership of these patents as part of a settlement agreement.
WDDD may be a pioneer and creator of its own patents. But let's just assume for a moment they bought the patents from someone else, such as Electronic Arts. That really wouldn't change the way ATVI approached WDDD's lawsuit and/or settlement negotiations. The one major advantage of being a PE is that you have the leverage of a possible court ordered injunction against the patent infringer. But in the current case, due to what's happened to date as well as the timing of the expiration of the patents, an injunction isn't an issue going forward.
So what benefit of being a PE is there? The courts aren't going to split hairs on this. They are going to look at the invention, the obviousness, the applicability, the construction of the claims, the validity, and so on and so force. They aren't going to look at whether the plaintiff is a PE, an NPE, or any other classification.
I think it makes some patent investors feel better about their investment if they can declare they have the advantage of being a practicing entity and their investment isn't a "patent troll." But that's not much worth to me. In general, I'd rather invest in a patent troll who bought the world's greatest patents in the most lucrative sector of technology manufacturing than invest in a practicing entity who invented weak patents in a weak sector.
