« Musical Chairs | Main | Kitchen Sink Solutions »

November 18, 2008


In their initial press release, Article One Partners declared "the current U.S. Patent System is outdated, archaic, and stifling to innovation." Their solution? Game the system.

Article One Partners is a patent bounty hunter system, paying $50,000 for invalidating prior art on big-money patents presently enforced. What's behind it?

Front running is an illegal practice for stock brokers, of trading on proprietary information prior to releasing that information to clients. But is front running illegitimate for those not licensed or registered to trade? At least someone is betting not.

Imagine a hedge fund that fronts a site, paying to have patents invalidated. Patents crucial to a company. Patents that, if invalidated, would cause the company's stock price to swoon. Imagine having that information ahead of the market, and shorting the stock before releasing the information. Front running. An injection of smart money before the dumb money weighs in.

From the Article One Partners web site:

Article One is not an investment adviser. This Site content does not constitute investment, securities, trading, patent or other advice or recommendation. Article One may have or take trading positions in the companies mentioned on this Site.

Article One Partners is reputedly founded by Cheryl Milone. The same Cheryl Ann Milone who was an IP attorney at Roger & Wells, with a law degree from Georgetown University, where she was a member of The Journal of Legal Ethics? You've come a long way, baby.

Posted by Patent Hawk at November 18, 2008 10:24 PM | Patents In Business


How do you know she's front running?

Posted by: Steve Sereboff at November 19, 2008 1:02 PM

Hi Steve,

In this entry, I just laid out pieces of information, and speculation.

Smart strategy if they are front running. But kicking the patent system to justify their game is a low blow, considering what their game appears to be.

Posted by: Patent Hawk at November 19, 2008 4:05 PM

The problem with the system they have set up is that only uninformed people would give them art worth millions to the defense in those trials. And those same people are the ones not likely to be able to find art if they held it in their very hands.

Posted by: 6000 at November 19, 2008 11:43 PM

Following on Steve's note above... I'm surprised to see such a personal attack on someone's ethics if you're basing this all on "a few pieces of information and speculation."

I'd love to know a bit more about how this company really operates, the peer review side is pretty interesting.


Posted by: Craig at November 25, 2008 7:40 AM


Thanks for reading.

"personal attack on... ethics"? What they are doing? The plan is brilliant, if it works. But they are duplicitous for attacking the system they plan to profit from. Their marketing message could have been more intelligent, and would have been more honest if they simply played the new sheriff come to clean up the town, evening while mopping up the money.

Posted by: Patent Hawk at November 25, 2008 11:33 AM

My real question was trying to figure out what's speculation, and what's fact. I'm trying to understand how they are attacking the system they plan to profit from.

Reading the marketing materials different than you seem to be. What is the plan? If you've found info giving more detail on it, where can we look?

Posted by: Craig at November 25, 2008 1:17 PM