Prof. Valerio Sterzi: The problem with patents

Valerio Sterzi, associate professor (Maître de conférences, HDR) in Economics at University of Bordeaux


Valerio Sterzi is on a mission. Ever since his undergraduate days at Bocconi University in Milan, he has been fascinated by the economics of innovation. At first he had great faith in patents as a tool for fostering innovation.


But as he delved ever deeper into the world of innovation economics - through his master at Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona, and then a doctorate at Bergamo University in Milan – he started to see problems.


Part of the problem was that patents were a topic mainly studied by legal academics, not economists. “I wanted to correct this,” Professor Sterzi said in an interview.


“There needs to be more exchange and interaction between economists and law academics. Without the input of empirical economic evidence the debate about the role of patents is rather abstract. I want to get away from that,” he said.


Sterzi has just released a new study into the secondary market for patents in Europe, showing that non-practising entities (NPEs) appear as current owners of almost 20K patent applications at the European Patent Office (EPO).


The study provides further evidence of the significant presence of NPEs in Europe. NPEs target mainly the ICT industry, where they acquired almost one in ten of all transacted patents over the past decade, with a peak of over 25% in 2019.


Last year Sterzi published an in-depth study of an aggressive NPE (also known as a patent assertion entity (PAE) or more colloquially, patent troll). It read like a detective story, following one dormant shell company after another to identify the true owners.


Sterzi’s latest study does not focus specifically on patent abuse. That will again be the main focus of his follow-up study expected in 2022. Instead this paper looks to quantify the presence of NPEs in the European patent market and to characterize their business models.


What is clear from this study is that the NPEs acquiring almost 10% of ICT patents traded in Europe include big established firms, many based in the US, as well as the small shell companies identified last year. “It’s not a question of size, it’s a question of intention,” Sterzi said.


The study’s findings also show that the majority of NPEs operating in Europe have business models built around monetizing their patents, rather than using them to make innovative products.


When an NPE acquires a patent, the number of citations of that patent falls when the acquirers are large patent aggregators. This indicates that the patented idea was of limited use, and that its owner wasn’t actively exploiting the patent in the market.

The number of citations is important because it indicates how relevant the patented idea is. Patents with limited citations are often used for financial gain only, and do not contribute much to further innovation.


Poor quality patents are ideal for NPEs looking to make money through litigation, rather than through exploitation of the patented technology. First, they are cheaper to buy. But more important, they are just as effective a tool to threaten companies that the NPE claims are breaching its patents.


To an operating company, the potential harm from an injunction, and the likelihood of a protracted and costly legal battle, may be as great with a trivial, low quality patent as with a higher quality one. So an operating company may  settle out of court to avoid these risks in either situation.


“I can’t say all NPEs are bad – some do encourage innovation by renumerating inventors – but there is a strong heterogeneity in the business models of NPEs – one focussed on monetization rather than intermediation,” he said.



Other blogs


UPC wrangling over transparency risks undermining Europe’s patent court ambitions

The launch of Europe’s long-awaited Unified Patent Court has been rocked by an internal argument over transparency. New rules proposed last month would make secrecy the default, not transparency, and industry is not happy.

Prof. Sikorski’s latest paper: IPRED needs targeted reforms to strengthen the principle of proportionality in patent litigation

There is broad agreement on the need for taking proportionality considerations into account in patent litigation cases but it’s not being applied in the courts in Europe. As a result, injunctions are being handed out automatically in almost all cases, even though EU legislation – the IP Rights Enforcement Directive (IPRED) – specifically calls for judges to apply proportionality. IPRED needs targeted amendments in order to correct this. In his paper titled Permanent Injunctions and the Reception of the Principle of Proportionality in the European Union, Rafal Sikorski, assistant professor, Chair of European Law at the Adam Mickiewicz University of Poznan in Poland, calls for reform of the directive. “The EU should consider introducing a set of factors to IPRED that the courts should consider when applying proportionality. In fact, this approach has already been taken by the EU legislator in the Trade Secrets Directive,” Professor Sikorski said in an interview.

Professors Hofmann and Raue: Taking proportionality seriously in the Unified Patent Court

Two German law professors, Dr Franz Hofmann and Dr Benjamin Raue have pooled forces to publish a joint paper this week on the delicate issue of injunctions and damages for the infringement of patents. The paper, entitled ‘Injunctions and Damages for the Infringement of Patents under the UPCA; an Analysis in the Light of the Principle of Proportionality’ calls for a more nuanced approach to patent infringement cases, and it urges judges of the recently launched UPC to consider damages instead of automatic injunctions as a remedy in their rulings.
Back to overview

Subscribe to our newsletter

Privacy policy

© IP2Innovate 2024 - Website door Two Impress