35 companies including Apple, EU “Patent Monster, hinder technology innovation”

Individuals or organizations that do not directly research and develop, manufacture or sell products, but collect a large number of patents and obtain compensation from companies that may infringe them are called patent monsters. These patent monsters are a headache for tech companies.

According to reports that such a patent monster hinders innovation, several multinational companies, including Apple, Microsoft, and BMW, have submitted letters requesting EU regulators to regulate patents for compensation purposes. Reportedly, four industry associations of 35 companies, including Apple, sent a letter to the European Commission warning that the patent monster is holding back innovation. It is said that the commission has been asked to enact strict rules to prevent patent holders from using their patents as toys (for profit).

It also noted that a court that admitted that a single patent had been infringed in the past has imposed a full ban on the sale of products, and has asked EU courts to take a more flexible approach. This is due to the precedent that, even if patent infringement is admitted in the United States, if the plaintiff has the characteristic of a patent monster, only compensation for damages is granted and the prohibition claim is dismissed.

Specifically, the 2006 incident between MerExchange and eBay in the United States. Merexchange, an internet auction developer, claimed that the Buy It Now feature infringed on its three patents without participating in eBay’s auctions. Previously, the principle that injunctive orders should be automatically issued when patent infringement is recognized was once ruled accordingly.

However, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the appeal decision and sent it back to the court, saying that it was necessary to meet the four requirements for certification of the ban. The four requirements are whether it is an unbearable infringement, whether the remedy alone is insufficient, whether the balance between the plaintiff and the defendant is considered, and whether the ban does not damage the public interest. Since then, after obtaining a patent, the atmosphere has increased to suppress the act of seeking compensation for large amounts of damage by requesting an injunction without using it.

Prior to this case, Apple filed an antitrust lawsuit in the U.S. Federal District Court against Intel and the Fortress Investment Group, an investment fund in the U.S., acquiring patent rights and filing a lawsuit against technology gear. It is known that the Eastern Texas District Court in the United States tends to rule in favor of the patent monster, and there are speculation that it is not a lawsuit that Apple shut down its direct store in the same area. It is also pointed out that Europe is also a suitable place for patent monsters seeking an import ban.

Aside from Apple, companies that signed the letter are calling for rules to mandate proportional support for patent infringement litigation. Of course, intellectual property rights should be respected by any individual or company, but it would be desirable to balance the innovation of technology companies and customer convenience within the scope that does not harm. Related information can be found here .