NIRO, HALLER & NIRO

The Recorder, 07/30/01

1

NIRO, HALLER & NIRO

INTEL CREATES A SHELL COMPANY IN THE CAYMAN ISLANDS TO BUY THE PATENT FROM BANKRUPTCY

The patent owner was a small inventor-owned company, IMS Meta Systems.

It produced a microprocessor chip designed to compete with the fastest Intel chips.

Intel infringed, but refused a license.  IMS was driven into bankruptcy.

Intel formed a shell company in the Cayman islands to secretly buy the patent from bankruptcy.

The Bankruptcy Judge blasts Intel. “I would submit that neither Maelen nor Intel gives a damn what this estate gets” out of any patent litigation.

2

The Story

NIRO, HALLER & NIRO

THE WALL STREET JOURNAL SAYS “SHAME ON INTEL”

“The giant semiconductor maker secretly used a shell company in the Cayman Islands to argue on its behalf in the federal bankruptcy case of International Meta Systems Inc., a tiny El Segundo, Calif., computer-chip-design company. As part of the Chapter 11 proceedings, now under way in Austin, the Cayman company challenged IMS’s sale last year of a patent to a Northbrook, Ill., law firm called TechSearch LLC.”

The Judge “‘They are using this estate in an attempt to bring leverage upon TechSearch and the litigation in California,” the judge said, describing the maneuver as “totally inappropriate.’”

Intel Uses the “E” Word -- Patent “Extortionist” “Chuck Mulloy, an Intel spokesman, acknowledged the company’s use of the Cayman company. But he says Intel was using ‘tactics appropriate to the plaintiff in this matter.’ He called TechSearch a ‘patent extortionist.’”

Charles Wolfman “Charles, Wolfram, a Cornell University law professor and an ethics expert, said Intel appeared to disclose its role when a ‘gun was to their heads,’ under the pressure of discovery rules. ‘I am distressed by this,’ Prof. Wolfram said, ‘what is a big company like Intel doing sneaking round like this?’”

3

The Article

NIRO, HALLER & NIRO

THE PATENT EXTORTIONIST MORPHS INTO A TROLL

Ironic

AND PETER DETKIN BECOMES A TROLL

4

NIRO, HALLER & NIRO

Opposing Counsel Opening Statement

5

NIRO, HALLER & NIRO

WERE THESE GUYS TROLLS?

TROLLS?

Westinghouse (air brake) Ford (car) Gillette (razor) Hewlett-Packard (oscillation generator) Otis (elevator) Harley (motorcycle shock absorber) Colt (revolving gun) Goodrich (tires) Goodyear (synthetic rubber) Carrier (air treatment) Noyce (Intel) Carlson (Xerox) Eastman (laser printer camera) Land (Polaroid) Shockley (semiconductor) Kellogg (grain harvester) DuPont (gun powder) Nobel (explosives) the Wright brothers (aircraft)

Owens (glass) Steinway (pianos) Bessemer (steel) Jacuzzi (hot tub) Smith & Wesson (firearm) Burroughs (calculator) Carothers (nylon) Curtiss (aircraft) Houdry (catalytic cracker) Marconi (wireless communication) Goodard (rocket) Diesel (internal combustion engine) Fermi (neutronic reactor) Disney (animation) Sperry (Gyroscope) Williams (helicopter) Abraham Lincoln who was granted U.S. Patent No. 6,469.

6

NIRO, HALLER & NIRO

MARKETPLACE FOR IDEAS

IDEAS

Markman Cost: $3-10 Million Risk: 1/10 Chance Victimology Trolls Reform

No Right to Exclude No Willfulness Opposition & IPR Proceedings Compulsory Licenses Restricted Venue

Create New Jobs Create New Businesses Users of Technology

7

NIRO, HALLER & NIRO

WHO IS CREATING THE NEW JOBS?

JOBS

Many big companies are out-sourcing jobs to China and India. Small companies often create new jobs here. As the inventor of the MRI scanning machine, Dr. Raymond Damadian, observed, it’s the small companies that often provide the spark for new jobs:

“Few Americans realize that the great majority of new jobs created for the public are provided by small companies with fewer than 500 employees. From 1981 to 1988, companies with fewer than 500 employees contributed 11.7 million new jobs to the economy. In this period, America’s small companies generated two thirds of all new employment.”

8

NIRO, HALLER & NIRO

PATENT LITIGATION RISK

RISK

Economist Gauri Prakash-Canjels did a comprehensive study of all patent cases that went to final judgment in all federal district courts in the United States between 1990 and 2000. She found that, in 2000, 78% of all the patent cases that went to final judgment (this excludes settlements) resulted in no recovery for the patentee (up from 64% in 1990). And of the 22% that did result in a recovery, roughly half (54%) produced a recovery greater than $1 million. That’s one out of ten. If it really costs $2 to $6 million to get a 10% chance of recovering more than $1 million, patent enforcement is a bad bet, not a good one.

9

NIRO, HALLER & NIRO

Question: WHAT IS AN OBJECTIVELY BASELESS CASE?  Answer: ANY CASE DECIDED ADVERSELY TO THE PATENTEE?      AS PROFESSOR ARTHUR MILLER FOUND:

A FRIVOLOUS CASE IS “ANY CASE BROUGHT AGAINST YOUR CLIENT AND LITIGATION ABUSE IS ANYTHING THE OPPOSING LAWYER IS DOING”

(Arthur Miller, Simplified Pleading, Meaningful Days in Court, and Trials on the Merits: Reflections on the Deformation of Federal Procedure, 88 NYU Law Rev. 286, 361 (2013).

OR

10

NIRO, HALLER & NIRO

WHAT IS A NUISANCE VALUE SETTLEMENT?

Number of Infringers Settlement Recovery 10 $3.0 million $30 million 1,000 $0.5 million $500 million 2,000 $1.0 million $2 billion

All below AIPLA average cost of defense of patent infringement case through trial: $3,000,000 to $8,000,000

WHY SHOULD A CLIENT BE FORCED TO BE GREEDY?Number of Infringers Settlement/ Total

Infringer Recovery 1,000 $3.0 million $3 billion 2,000 $3.0 million $6 billion

11

NIRO, HALLER & NIRO

With Multiple Infringers Take Some Chips

Off the Table

MultipleInfringers xx xxxxxxxxxx

Settlements -

Trial

Litigation12

NIRO, HALLER & NIRO

Take $1 Million;No chance of losing

Flip the coin for possible $50 Million

$1 Million $10 Million

?

What to do?Empty

Pockets?Sitting on a lot

of money?

13