Most Litigated Patents 2005-2007

The following table lists the patents asserted most often in patent infringement litigation since January 2005.

• Patent No. 5,790,512. Asserted by electronics giant Koninklikje Philips in 29 separate lawsuits.
• Patent Reissue No. 38,014. Asserted by Mag Instruments in 29 separate lawsuits.
• Patent No. 5,313,229. Asserted by F&G Research in 24 separate lawsuits.
• Patent No. 4,792968. Asserted by Ron Katz in 19 separate lawsuits.
• Patent No. 6,766,304. Asserted by Trading Technologies in 17 separate lawsuits.
• Patent No. 5,352,605. Asserted by Monsanto in 17 separate lawsuits.
• Patent No. 6,241,739. Asserted by Altair Instruments in 16 separate lawsuits.

Interestingly, only two of these patents appear to be controlled by non-practicing entities.

(From Westlaw Patent Litigation Data)

Comments

[Alan McDonald]

I think your summary misses one big point. It does not take into account suits filed against multiple parties. For example, in the Solaia suits over programable logic controller software (I was employed by one of the defendants in one of the suits by this troll) it was normal for Solaia to sue 6-10 companies at a time. Maybe fewer suits, but possibly more parties involved.

[Shane Warne]

Where on Westlaw did you search to come up with this information?

[the unknown patent lawyer]

Agree with Alan McDonald. Consider the suits brought by Orion in EDTX, naming dozens of unrelated defendants each time. Probably over 200 separate defendants in those matters to date.

[Patent Hawk]

http://patentlaw.typepad.com/patent/

[Patent Hawk]

The only reason all those patents are still standing is that the defendants didn't hire Patent Hawk to invalidate them.

[Chuck]

How do we contact "Patent Hawk"?

[Phil Marcus]

Is a "non-practicing entity" not like the owner of an office building who does not rent space in his own building? Why would we then segregate these owners?

[Alan McDonald]

"Is a "non-practicing entity" not like the owner of an office building who does not rent space in his own building? Why would we then segregate these owners?"

Not really. In the office building example there is a choice to rent in another building or build your own building and practice the same activity. In the case of the patent owner, the activity sought to be practiced is banned unless you play in his sandbox.

[iwasthere]

or invent your own product to satisfy the market demand and leave the non-practicing patent owner with nothing. (wait, sorry that would require innovation by the infringer).

[VIJAYKUMAR SHRIKRUSHNA CHOWBE, ASSISTANT PROFESSOR, HIDAYATULLAH NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, RAIPUR]

These are important information. But the ultimate openion of the court may be quoated so that the final outcome in the most litigated patents can be place before readers. Also, the other information that what were the issue for litigations, finding can be add so that the board would become interesting and complete within itself for intersted readers.