Patent Assertion Entity Activity

Chapter 5: Patent Characteristics
Introduction
This chapter describes the patents and patent applications held by Study PAEs and Holding Entities. 295 It
combines publicly available information describing granted patents with confidential information
reported by Responding PAEs about the patents that they owned and asserted. Portfolio PAEs held
significantly more patents than Litigation PAEs. However, the FTC did not find dramatic differences in
the compositions of Portfolio PAE and Litigation PAE patent holdings. Study PAEs focused on
acquiring and asserting patents related to Information and Communication Technologies (ICT). For all
patents reported in the FTC’s study:
Eighty-eight percent related to the Computers & Communications or Other Electrical &
Electronic patent technology categories;
More than 75% were software-related patents. 296
These figures are consistent with anecdotal reports and the generally held view that PAEs
disproportionately acquire and assert ICT and software patents. 297 Furthermore, among the patents in
the FTC’s sample:
Fewer than 1% were identified as encumbered by a commitment to a Standard Setting
Organization;
295
See Appendix A: Glossary of Frequently Used Terms. “Holding Entity” means a firm identified by a Responding Firm in
response to Specification B.2 that held but did not assert patents during the study period. (Firms identified in response to
Specification B.2 that held and asserted patents are called “Affiliates.”) Id. Figure 1.1 represents the Holding Entities as the
2,189 firms that are on the side of the figure that “did not Assert IP.” Study PAEs include all Responding PAEs and their
Affiliates, which engaged in assertion activity. This chapter refers to the combined holdings of the Study PAEs and Holding
Entities as the “study sample of patents.” Id.
296
The FTC used the methodology developed by Graham and Vishnubhakat for identifying software-related patents and the
patent technology categories developed by Hall et al. to classify patents into broad technology categories. See Graham &
Vishnubhakat, supra note 9; Hall et al., supra note 9.
297
See, e.g., Allison et al., supra note 46, at 18 (software patents); COMINO & MANENTI, supra note 2 at 3 (ICT patents);
Christian Helmers, Brian Love & Luke McDonagh, Is There a Patent Troll Problem in the U.K.?, 24 FORDHAM INTELL.
PROP. MEDIA & ENT. L.J. 509, 516 (2014) (ICT patents); Shrestha, supra note 96, at 145 (ICT patents); YEH, supra note 120,
at 9 (software and ICT patents, citing articles by scholars).
124