As IT and Fintech Patent Grants Increase, PAE Confidence Grows

Association of Corporate Counsel Newsletter
October 2019 Publications

As IT and Fintech patent grants trend upward again, Patent Assertion Entities (PAE) are gaining renewed confidence in their patent portfolios and filing more lawsuits.

In early 2019, new guidelines were issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office regarding the patent-eligibility of computer-implemented processes. The new guidelines established a clearer path to patent eligibility for applications in fields such as IT and Fintech, a significant contributing factor to the recent upward trend.

Businesses may soon feel the costly repercussions of trying to protect themselves against patent infringement suits by PAEs. PAEs typically do not provide goods or services, but rather acquire and assert patents with the goal of obtaining licensing revenue.

An unexpected patent infringement lawsuit can be time-intensive, costly and stressful for in-house counsel and other business leaders. There are, however, some initial response steps to lawsuits by PAEs that can, in many cases, reduce the cost and time uncertainty that accompanies such lawsuits:

  • Determine if the technology at issue involves equipment provided to your company by an outside supplier. A significant percentage of patents asserted by PAEs cover network or back-office computer systems. PAEs prefer to invest in such patents due to their wide applicability across the business world. A side effect of this tendency is that the patented methods are often executed on network or back-office turnkey systems provided by third party suppliers. These turnkey systems are typically accompanied by indemnity guarantees against patent infringement lawsuits. In such cases, the cost and stress of defending the lawsuit immediately transfers to the supplier. In fact, if the PAE has been active, the supplier may already have obtained a license to the patent to settle a previous lawsuit.
  • Review the trajectory of past lawsuits by the PAE. You or your outside counsel likely subscribe to at least one service that enables a comprehensive docket search of the federal courts where all patent suits must be lodged. The details of previous lawsuits by the PAE often provide an accurate range for the time and cost that will be required to defend the suit against your company. For example, how many of the previous suits lasted more than a year before dismissal? If few or none, the PAE is likely not interested in investing in lengthy litigation, and a quick and relatively low settlement offer may be sufficient to end your suit. Next, how many of the previous suits progressed beyond the summary judgment stage? Has the patent in suit faced a serious invalidity challenge yet? The answers to these questions can provide insight as to the willingness of the PAE to press the litigation if its initial licensing demands are not met.
  • Make sure the complaint is specific to your company. Some PAEs rely on a “form” complaint that alleges infringement of each step of a computer-implemented method in general terms. A PAE may be reluctant to invest the resources to dig in to the facts surrounding your company’s alleged infringement of the accused technology. However, a failure to plead case-specific details of the alleged infringement of a method claim can be fatal to a patent infringement complaint. Did any previous defendants file a successful motion to dismiss? If so, you have a template from which to work. The PAE may be willing to accept a lower settlement offer rather than doing the legwork necessary to fix defects in the complaint.
  • Note whether the asserted patent involves an industry standard. Patented computer-implemented methods that are adopted into a formally recognized industry standard are often subject to a requirement that they be licensed to interested parties at “reasonable and non-discriminatory” (RAND) terms (also known as “fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory” (FRAND) terms).  In such cases, the amount required for settlement of the lawsuit may be less than one would otherwise expect.

By working with outside counsel on these key steps, you can better estimate a range for the cost and time commitment your company may be facing as the target of a patent infringement lawsuit by a PAE.

Michael Longmeyer is a partner in Armstrong Teasdale’s Intellectual Property practice group in St. Louis. A former NASA engineer, Mike has extensive experience with the issues surrounding patent eligibility after the Supreme Court’s Alice decision, and has advised numerous clients on patent infringement issues.

Contact Us
  • Worldwide
  • Boston, MA
  • Denver, CO
  • Edwardsville, IL
  • Jefferson City, MO
  • Kansas City, MO
  • Las Vegas, NV
  • New York, NY
  • Philadelphia, PA
  • Princeton, NJ
  • Salt Lake City, UT
  • St. Louis, MO
Worldwide
abstract image of world map
Boston, MA
225 Franklin Street
26th Floor
Boston, MA 02110
Google Maps
Boston, Massachusetts
Denver, CO
4643 S. Ulster St.
Suite 800
Denver, CO 80237
Google Maps
Denver, Colorado
Edwardsville, IL
115 N. Second St.
Edwardsville, IL 62025
Google Maps
Edwardsville, Illinois
Jefferson City, MO
3405 W. Truman Boulevard
Suite 210
Jefferson City, MO 65109
Google Maps
Jefferson City, Missouri
Kansas City, MO
2345 Grand Blvd.
Suite 1500
Kansas City, MO 64108
Google Maps
Kansas City, Missouri
Las Vegas, NV
3770 Howard Hughes Parkway
Suite 200
Las Vegas, NV 89169
Google Maps
Las Vegas, Nevada
New York, NY
919 Third Ave., 37th Floor
New York, NY 10022
Google Maps
New York City
Philadelphia, PA
2005 Market Street
29th Floor, One Commerce Square
Philadelphia, PA 19103
Google Maps
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Princeton, NJ
100 Overlook Center
Second Floor
Princeton, NJ 08540
Google Maps
Princeton, New Jersey
Salt Lake City, UT
257 East 200 South
Suite 350
Salt Lake City, UT 84111
Google Maps
Salt Lake City, Utah
St. Louis, MO
7700 Forsyth Blvd.
Suite 1800
St. Louis, MO 63105
Google Maps
St. Louis, Missouri