Patent Assertion Entity Activity

These percentages suggest that both Litigation PAEs and NPEs sent a fair share of demands to firms
that may have been customers or end-users of the allegedly infringing product or technology. For
example, 16% of Litigation PAE demand recipients operated in the “Telecommunications and
Broadcasting” industry and 18% of NPE demand recipients operated in the “Transportation and
Warehousing” industry.
Wireless Respondents’ Litigation Activity
This section compares Wireless Respondents’ litigation behavior. First, it reports on overall litigation
activity by Wireless Respondent type. Then it compares case outcomes, and the extent to which
Wireless Respondents used contingency fee counsel, specifically reporting on the percentage of cases
that terminated and the percentage of terminated cases that settled; whether courts awarded damages,
assessed fees, or issued sanctions; and the duration of settled cases. 275 Finally, it breaks down the
industries of defendants by Wireless Respondent type.
Wireless Manufacturers Rarely Sued for Patent Infringement
The FTC asked Wireless Respondents to identify all litigation involving infringement of Wireless
Patents that they or their Affiliates brought during the study period in U.S. district court or the ITC. 276
Twenty-three Wireless Respondents—four Wireless Manufacturers, five NPEs, three Portfolio PAEs,
and 11 Litigation PAEs—reported relevant information. Four Wireless Manufacturers did not sue for
infringement of any wireless patent during the study period.
275
The FTC categorized all cases in the study as either pending or terminated. A case terminates when a plaintiff dismisses
the case, the court dismisses the case, the parties reach a settlement, or the court renders a final verdict.
276
Appendix C: PAE Special Order, Specification H.2; Appendix D: Wireless Case Study Special Order, Specification E.2.
109