There are also strategic advantages in not having to produce evidence if the patent holder is not the inventor, but that doesn't explain the many shell companies. One would suffice.
My impression is that its a way to protect the assets of the mothership if a patent is found to have been asserted in bad faith. If that finding is made, and an attorneys fee award is made against the shell company that holds only one asset, i.e., the broad, vague patent, then IV will not have to pay the award for its actions, even under 'piercing the corporate veil' principles.....
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by dave x.
There are also strategic advantages in not having to produce evidence if the patent holder is not the inventor, but that doesn't explain the many shell companies. One would suffice.
My impression is that its a way to protect the assets of the mothership if a patent is found to have been asserted in bad faith. If that finding is made, and an attorneys fee award is made against the shell company that holds only one asset, i.e., the broad, vague patent, then IV will not have to pay the award for its actions, even under 'piercing the corporate veil' principles.....