How Cloudflare Stood Up to a Patent Troll

March 4, 2022

Order ID:89JHGSJE83839 Style:APA/MLA/Harvard/Chicago Pages:5-10

Instructions:

How Cloudflare Stood Up to a Patent Troll

Read The Project Jengo Saga – How Cloudfare Stood Up to a Patent Troll – and Won! Answer all of the below questions in your own words. Do not include the questions in your answer file, and do not include any quotations.

You may need to conduct independent research to answer some of the questions. If you do conduct outside sources, you must cite your sources.

What is a non-practicing entity (sometimes referred to as a “patent troll”)?

What is prior art?

What was Project Jengo? Why did Cloudfare create the project?

What was the procedural history of the lawsuit against Cloudfare? (Think back to Module 1. What court was the case originally brought in? What happened at the trial court? Which party brought the appeal and to what court?)

Make sure to apply what we learned in Module 1 to receive credit on this assignment

What were the results of Project Jengo, both in the Blackbird v. Cloudfare case and other results not directly related to the Blackbird case?

Recently, a non-practicing entity (NPE) sued a company that was developing COVID-19 tests alleging patent infringement. Another NPE sued a company that manufactures ventilators alleging patent infringement. What are your thoughts on the following questions (there is no right or wrong answer, but make sure to answer all questions):

Should individuals or entities be permitted to hold patents on life-saving technology? Why or why not? What are the pros and cons of each?

Do your answers to these questions differ if the patent holder manufactures and/or sells products covered by one or more of the patent claims vs. if the patent holder is an NPE?

RUBRIC

Excellent Quality

95-100%

Introduction

45-41 points

The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.

Literature Support

91-84 points

The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.

Methodology

58-53 points

Content is well-organized with headings for each slide and bulleted lists to group related material as needed. Use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. to enhance readability and presentation content is excellent. Length requirements of 10 slides/pages or less is met.

Average Score

50-85%

40-38 points

More depth/detail for the background and significance is needed, or the research detail is not clear. No search history information is provided.

83-76 points

Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is little integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are included. Summary of information presented is included. Conclusion may not contain a biblical integration.

52-49 points

Content is somewhat organized, but no structure is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. is occasionally detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met.

Poor Quality

0-45%

37-1 points

The background and/or significance are missing. No search history information is provided.

75-1 points

Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is no integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are not included in the summary of information presented. Conclusion does not contain a biblical integration.

48-1 points

There is no clear or logical organizational structure. No logical sequence is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects etc. is often detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met

You Can Also Place the Order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow or www.crucialessay.com/orders/ordernow