US patent grants fell last year for first time since 2008 – PwC report
Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

US patent grants fell last year for first time since 2008 – PwC report

Patent Litigation 2016 chart 165

PwC’s US Patent Litigation Study reveals a number of interesting trends, including that damages awards for non-practicing entities are almost three times greater than practicing entities over the past five years

 

The 2016 version of PwC’s widely-read Patent Litigation Study is out, this year’s subtitled “Are we at an inflection point”.

While the report contains a lot of interesting information about patent litigation in the US, one of the most interesting facts is not directly to do with litigation. Rather, the report reveals 2015 showed a decrease in patents granted by the USPTO, the first decline since 2008.

The number of patent cases filed also fell in 2015. The roughly 5,600 cases filed was down 2% from 2014, which itself was a fall from the high point in 2015.

“The decline in the number of patent cases filed and patents granted is likely driven by various factors – one being the Supreme Court’s 2014 decision in Alice Corp v CLS Bank, which significantly impacted the ability to obtain and assert software patents,” noted PwC in the report.

PWC patent litigation 2016
Source: PwC's 2016 Patent Litigation Study

Other trends noted in the report include:

·         The 2015 median annual damages award ($10.2 million) reached the highest point in 10 years, with one mega verdict in 2015 of $533 million.

·         Consumer products still leads in number of cases, while the biotech/pharma industries have the highest median damages awards.

·         Damages awards for non-practicing entities are almost three times greater than for practicing entities over the past five years.

·         NPE cases are concentrated. Five district courts (of 94) account for 45% of all identified NPE decisions.

·         The patentee success rate stands at 33%.

·         Time to trial edged up to 2.5 years in 2015.

·         Some 80% of district court decisions are appealed, and 53% of appealed decisions are modified in some regard.

·         There is an increased likelihood of fee shifting following two 2014 Supreme Court decisions. “Fee shifting in patent cases caught attention this year, with discussion focused on the merits and disadvantages of ‘fee shifting’ – making the loser pay the legal costs of litigation,” said PwC. 



more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

A majority of clients – particularly high-earning businesses – want advisers with demonstrable social credentials, according to a survey of more than 28,000 corporate counsel
The US Supreme Court’s ruling in Warner Chappell Music v Nealy is a boost for certain copyright plaintiffs, but some counsel wonder if the court addressed the right question
Private equity firm Adamantem Capital leads the race to acquire Australia-based intellectual property business Qantm IP
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Counsel at four firms reveal how they supervise associates on pro bono matters and what kind of volunteer work their attorneys do
Kramer Levin litigators explain how they secured victory for their client against Microsoft subsidiary Activision in a dispute concerning the video game ‘Call of Duty’
Steven Cooper, partner at Ware Fressola Maguire & Barber, explains what sponsoring Brand Action means for his firm and why the IP community is well-placed to help
Tilman Müller-Stoy reveals why he never made it as a footballer and how he could have had an alternative career as a fire juggler
As the UPC approaches its first anniversary, there’s a risk that persisting teething issues will continue to be the major pain points
Justin Davidson and Stanley Ng of Norton Rose Fulbright discuss what China’s recent Ultraman ruling does and doesn’t say about who is responsible when an AI system infringes copyright
Gift this article