Federal Trade Commission Votes to Conduct Study on Patent Assertion Entities
Client Alert | 2 min read | 09.27.13
The FTC announced on September 27 that after a unanimous vote, the Commissioners have decided to launch a study of patent assertion entities (PAEs) and their effect on innovation and competition. The agency has long indicated interest in this issue. The study, which will be conducted pursuant to Section 6(b) of the FTC Act, will allow the FTC to issue compulsory process orders to gather information from PAEs, as well as from other companies that operate in the wireless communications sector.
PAEs have lately garnered scrutiny from the Obama Administration, Congress, and private litigants, as described in more depth here. Their effect on competition and innovation is, however, difficult to measure, because details about licensing transactions are often confidential. But the Commission has the authority to collect non-public information, such as licensing agreements and cost and revenue data. As a result, the study is expected to generate a much richer set of data from which the Commission will be able to draw conclusions. According to the Commission's announcement, the study will target specific issues, including (1) the corporate structure of PAEs; (2) the type of patents held by PAEs; (3) the licensing and litigation conduct of PAEs; and (4) the operating costs and revenues of PAEs.
While the Commission has emphasized on various occasions that it has not yet drawn any conclusions about whether PAEs have a negative effect on competition and innovation, a 6(b) study has the potential to result in enforcement actions in the future. For example, the Commission's position against reverse payment settlements in the pharmaceutical industry was solidified after it conducted a 6(b) study on that subject from 2000 through 2002.
The FTC has issued a public call for comments on proposed information requests to PAEs, and it will accept such comments for 60 days, at this address. Upon expiration of the comment period, the FTC will seek clearance from the Office of Management and Budget to commence issuing compulsory process orders.
Contacts
Insights
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.26.25
From ‘Second’ to ‘First:’ Federal Circuit Tackles Obvious Claim Errors
Patent claims must be clear and definite, as they set the boundaries of the patentee’s rights. Occasionally, however, claim language contains errors, such as typographical mistakes or incorrect numbering. Courts possess very limited authority to correct such errors. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has emphasized that judicial correction is appropriate only in rare circumstances, where (1) the error is evident from the face of the patent, and (2) the proposed correction is the sole reasonable interpretation in view of the claim language, specification, and prosecution history. See Group One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 407 F.3d 1297, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) and Novo Indus., L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp., 350 F.3d 1348, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003).
Client Alert | 5 min read | 11.26.25
Client Alert | 6 min read | 11.25.25
Brussels Court Clarifies the EU’s SPC Manufacturing Waiver Regulation Rules
Client Alert | 3 min read | 11.24.25
