Count, the stand-alone IP tax-collector model may be toast...
after the May 16 eBay v. MercExchange decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. As I understand it, the Supreme Court generally agreed with the district court that a patent holder's "lack of commercial activity in practicing the patents" creates a presumptive basis for denial of injunctive relief against would-be infringers. The court appears to exclude only very limited classes of patent holders, such as university researchers and self-made inventors, from this new requirement for seeking to enjoin infringing parties.
IMO, without the potential threat of an injuction against infringers, patent holders not engaged in at least the attempted commercialization of their inventions will be at a severe disadvantage going forward.
I see IDCC's chip endeavors as both a means of fulfilling the new standard for securing injunctive protection for its patents and as a real profit-seeking effort to offer a comprehensive commercialization of those patents. For either reason alone, I believe IDCC's ASIC strategy is warranted; for both reasons combined, the chip strategy becomes essential.
There are many formidable companies and interest groups now seeking to change the U.S. patent laws to eliminate or severely diminish the infringement claims of the so-called "patent trolls" and of patent holders in general. The concept of patent trolling is somewhat akin to the IP tax-collector model and, absent attempted commercialization, both are probably headed toward extinction. Fortunately, IDCC's ASIC efforts establish a clear distinction between its current business model and those of either the patent trolls or IP tax-collectors.
Just my opinion, and please bear in mind that I'm not an attorney.
texb
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
