Patent Assertion Entity Activity

with 75% of their settlements occurring within a year of filing the complaint. 284 Most Wireless
Manufacturer and NPE cases also settled relatively quickly. Around two-thirds of the Wireless
Manufacturer and NPE settled cases settled within 18 months, and at least three-quarters settled within
two years. Nearly 70% of Portfolio PAE-settled cases took more than two years to resolve. In other
words, although Portfolio PAEs did not sue as frequently as NPEs and Litigation PAEs, when they did
file cases, their cases took longer to resolve than those of the other Wireless Respondents.
Wireless Respondents differed in their use of contingency fee counsel. Wireless Manufacturers did not
report using contingency fee counsel, and Portfolio PAEs typically paid their lawyers on a fee-forservice
basis. Consistent with the observations in Chapter 3, all Litigation PAEs reported using
contingency fee arrangements. 285 Four of the five NPEs also reported using contingency fee
arrangements.
Most Wireless Defendants Operated in the “Computer & Electronic Product
Manufacturing” Industry
As reported in Chapter 3, a large share of Study PAE defendants operated outside of manufacturing
industries, but more Litigation PAE defendants than Portfolio PAE defendants appeared to be nonmanufacturers.
Figure 4.4, shows, by Wireless Respondent type, the industries in which defendants in
the wireless patent cases operated. 286 Like recipients of wireless patent demands, wireless patent
defendants most commonly operated in the “Computer & Electronic Product Manufacturing” industry,
accounting for 46% of all defendants.
284
See Appendix B: Methodology (discussing the methodology used to calculate case duration).
285
This excludes one Litigation PAE, which gave an incomplete answer to the FTC’s question about the use of contingency
fee arrangements, citing attorney-client privilege.
286
See Appendix B: Methodology (describing the methodology used to assign defendants to industries).
113