1. Josh Landau published a post on Patent Progress titled One Case, All The Problems: VLSI v. Intel Exemplifies Current Issues In Patent Litigation. The author states that "Patent litigation suffers from a number of issues at present," including "Hedge funds backing non-practicing entities (NPEs) in order to chase a share of billion-dollar judgments," "Plaintiffs using damages methodologies that have little to no relation to the reality of the patent system in order to obtain those billion dollar judgments," "NPEs asserting patents that they don’t use, and that they obtained from operating companies who never used the patents either," and "Plaintiffs picking the judge they want in order to avoid having the Patent Office review the validity of their patents. One recent case ticks all these boxes."
2. Alan Cox published a guest post on Patently-O titled The Damages Testimony in VLSI Technologies v. Intel. The post discusses the damages evidence presented at trial, which Dr. Cox followed via telephone. I read this paper in draft, and thought it was very helpful in understanding the evidence, in particular the use of hedonic regression analysis by the plaintiff.
3. On the other hand, most of the relevant court-filed documents remain sealed, which prompted this letter by Professor Bernard Chao, which Patently-O also posted last week (and which I, among several others, signed).