Beginning Next Week: InsideCounsel will become part of Corporate Counsel. Bringing these two industry-leading websites together will now give you comprehensive coverage of the full spectrum of issues affecting today's General Counsel at companies of all sizes. You will continue to receive expert analysis on key issues including corporate litigation, labor developments, tech initiatives and intellectual property, as well as Women, Influence & Power in Law (WIPL) professional development content. Plus we'll be serving all ALM legal publications from one interconnected platform, powered by, giving you easy access to additional relevant content from other InsideCounsel sister publications.

To prevent a disruption in service, you will be automatically redirected to the new site next week. Thank you for being a valued InsideCounsel reader!


When PAEs are not patent trolls

European Commission needs to understand what a patent assertion entity is

Recently, Joaquin Almunia, VP of competition policy at the European Commission, took both Nokia and Samsung to task for their behaviors in regards to patent litigation. In a speech, Almunia fired a warning shot across the bow of Nokia, indicating his concerns that the tech company was beginning to act like a patent troll.  But, as Tim Worstall points out in a piece he wrote for Forbes, there is such a thing as a patent-assertion entity (PAE), which is not necessarily the same thing as a patent troll. 

Almunia cites statistics that show just how bad the patent troll problem is in the United States, but he seems to be using the terms PAE and troll interchangeably. The fact of the matter is that a PAE is any company that chooses to enforce its patents through licensing or litigation. This could include, for example, universities, which often hold many patents that they do not use for, say, manufacturing.

In addition, big technology companies often have thousands upon thousands of patents (IBM, for example, racked up more than 6,000 last year alone). As such, these companies might not be actively using a particular patent, but they certainly have the right to defend such patents in court if they feel another company is infringing.

The key difference, according to Bill Sorrell, is an economic one. True trolls use threats or intimidation to squeeze money out of companies, either by targeting downstream users or counting on the cost of settlement being far less than the cost of litigation. But not all PAEs engage in this kind of behavior, and Joaquin Almunia should take some time to note and acknowledge the difference.


Fore more news about patent trolls, check out the following:

Breaking: House passes patent reform bill

Attorneys general talk the State of the Trolls

Massachusetts Attorney General latest to take on patent trolls

USPTO director talks challenges and change at AIPLA conference

Senior Editor and Community Manager

author image

Rich Steeves

Richard P. Steeves is Senior Editor and Community Manager of InsideCounsel magazine, where he covers the intellectual property and compliance beats. Rich earned a B.A....

Bio and more articles

Join the Conversation

Advertisement. Closing in 15 seconds.