1 Apr
2015

IP-related statistics from the recent past

A selection of key IP facts and figures, as reported by <em>IAM</em> and other sources

Table 1. Stock performance of selected publicly traded IP-centric companies, January-March 2015

174739.jpg

Source: Google Finance

Tables 2a and 2b show the entities with the highest volume of in-bound patent assignment transactions (assignee table) and out-bound patent assignment transactions (assignor table), as recorded at the USPTO. These results are calculated by aggregating the number of transactions completed by an assignee/assignor in January and February 2015.

One transaction may include multiple patents, patent families and patent portfolios. Many companies create numerous holding vehicles to house their different IP portfolios; this is why similar company names may appear multiple times in the tables.

Table 2a. Top 30 patent assignees by number of transactions, January-February 2015

#

Assignee entity

Number of assignments transacted

1

National Institutes Of Health (NIH), U.S. Dept. Of Health And Human Services (DHHS), U.S. Government

205

2

National Science Foundation

134

3

eBay Inc.

124

4

Canon Kabushiki Kaisha

77

5

International Business Machines Corporation

74

6

Dow Global Technologies LLC

61

7

Intel Corporation

55

8

Inventor Holdings, LLC

53

9

Sony Corporation

52

10

Sanyo Electric Co., Ltd.

48

11

InnerCool Therapies, Inc.

47

12

Globus Medical, Inc.

41

13

U.S. Department Of Energy

40

14

Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.

38

15

Rovi Guides, Inc.

38

16

The Regents Of The University Of California

37

17

Qualcomm Incorporated

35

18

Google Inc.

34

19

Xerox Corporation

33

20

Sharp Kabushiki Kaisha

33

21

Microsoft Corporation

33

22

Apple Inc.

32

23

IGT

31

24

TV Guide, Inc.

30

25

CenturyLink Intellectual Property LLC

30

26

UV Corp.

29

27

Sarcos LC

29

28

Novartis AG

29

29

Veolia Water Technologies, Inc.

28

30

Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha

28

Source: ktMINE (www.ktmine.com)

Table 2b. Top 30 patent assignors by number of transactions, January-February 2015

#

Assignor entity

Number of assignments transacted

1

Searete LLC

25

2

Hon Hai Precision Industry Co., Ltd.

24

3

Sharp Laboratories Of America, Inc.

22

4

Marathon Patent Group, Inc.

19

5

Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing North America, Inc.

18

6

Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Ltd.

17

7

Meso Scale Technologies, LLC.

15

8

Emcore Corporation

14

9

Sony Computer Entertainment Inc.

11

10

Scienbizip Consulting (Shenzhen) Co.,Ltd.

11

11

Meso Scale Technologies, LLC

10

12

Papa, Steven Paul

9

13

Novartis AG

9

14

Mishra, Rajesh Kumar

9

15

Bank Of America, N.A.

9

16

Weiman, Mark

8

17

Scheidl, Stefan

8

18

Reichenberger, Klaus

8

19

Momentive Specialty Chemicals Inc.

8

20

Licht, Nico

8

21

Heimann, Archim

8

22

Crocker, James P

8

23

Brand, Stephan

8

24

University Of Utah

7

25

Schaeffler Technologies GmbH & Co. KG

7

26

Nokia Corporation

7

27

Neumann, Michael

7

28

Cox, Isaiah W.

7

29

University Of California San Diego

6

30

Teggatz, Ross E.

6

One transaction may include multiple patents, patent families and patent portfolios. Many companies create numerous holding vehicles to house their different IP portfolios; this is why similar company names may appear multiple times in the tables.

Source: ktMINE (www.ktmine.com)

Table 3 lists all of the US Supreme Court cases relating to patent matters decided since January 2005 and ranks them according to the number of times they have subsequently been cited in US litigation.

Table 3. US Supreme Court patent-related decisions 2005-2015, ranked by number of citations

#

Case

Year

Issue concerned

1

KSR International Co v Teleflex Inc, 550 US 398

2007

Obviousness

2

eBay Inc v MercExchange, LLC, 547 US 388

2006

Injunctive relief

3

MedImmune, Inc v Genentech, Inc, 549 US 118

2007

Licensee's right to challenge licensed patents

4

Global-Tech Appliances, Inc v SEB SA, 131 S Ct 2060

2011

Induced infringement

5

Bilski v Kappos, 561 US 593

2010

Subject-matter eligibility (business methods)

6

Microsoft Corp v i4i Ltd Partnership, 131 S Ct 2238

2011

Presumption of validity

7

Illinois Tool Works Inc v Independent Ink, Inc, 547 US 28

2006

'Tying' arrangements in patent licences

8

Quanta Computer, Inc v LG Electronics, Inc, 553 US 617

2008

Exhaustion

9

Microsoft Corp v AT & T Corp, 550 US 437

2007

Infringement by export of components

10

Unitherm Food Systems, Inc v Swift-Eckrich, Inc, 546 US 394

2006

Post-verdict civil procedure requirements

11

Mayo Collaborative Services v Prometheus Laboratories, Inc, 132 S Ct 1289

2012

Subject-matter eligibility (diagnostic methods)

12

Carlsbad Technology, Inc v HIF Bio, Inc, 556 US 635

2009

Appellate jurisdiction

13

Merck KGaA v Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd, 545 US 193

2005

Research exception to infringement

14

FTC v Actavis, Inc, 133 S Ct 2223

2013

Reverse payment ('pay-for-delay') settlements

15

Gunn v Minton, 133 S Ct 1059

2013

Federal jurisdiction over cases relating to, but not directly involving, patents

16

Lexmark Intern, Inc v Static Control Components, Inc, 134 S Ct 1377

2014

Unfair competition based on false infringement allegations

17

Nautilus, Inc v Biosig Instruments, Inc, 134 S Ct 2120

2014

Indefiniteness

18

Already, LLC v Nike, Inc, 133 S Ct 721

2013

Standing after covenant not to sue

19

Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University v Roche Molecular Systems, Inc, 131 S Ct 2188

2011

Patent ownership under the Bayh-Dole Act

20

Association for Molecular Pathology v Myriad Genetics, Inc, 133 S Ct 2107

2013

Subject-matter eligibility (isolated genetic material)

21

Alice Corp Pty Ltd v CLS Bank Intern, 134 S Ct 2347

2014

Subject-matter eligibility (computer-implemented inventions)

22

Limelight Networks, Inc v Akamai Technologies, Inc, 134 S Ct 2111

2014

Divided infringement

23

Caraco Pharmaceutical Laboratories, Ltd v Novo Nordisk A/S, 132 S Ct 1670

2012

Forcing correction of patented drug 'use codes' in the US Food & Drug Administration's Orange Book

Source: Patently-O