To revive or not to revive: that is the question

[ssiddiqu]

I have my application for patent abandoned (unintentional). I am mulling over whether or not it's worth the cost for reviving and continuing prosecution.
My original reason for filing was to to actually develop a software around the idea but the attempt wasn't successful. There are other companies that have come forward with similar software. Other than an approved patent looking good on my resume, the only reason for spending money to revive and continue prosecution is to be able to obtain some monetary benefit from infringement claim.
With no exposure to how infringement claims pan out, I am looking for some general information on the topic.
Does having an approved patent increases the chances of getting monetary compensation (settlement?) related to infringement claims? How common it is (if at all) for a lawyer to accept a case where the fees are charged only if monetary damage is obtained?
Appreciate your patience and thoughts even if my questions are very basic or maybe even dumb. 

[DogDayPM 9er9er9er]

Does having an approved patent increases the chances of getting monetary compensation (settlement?) related to infringement claims? How common it is (if at all) for a lawyer to accept a case where the fees are charged only if monetary damage is obtained? 

Having a granted patent is indispensible to getting paid for patent infringement.  Without a granted patent, you have no enforceable rights.  Then the granted claims must cover what the allegedly infringing software is or does.  Do you know enough about both of, what claims you might get, and what the "similar" software actually is, to have a reasonable basis for thinking you could have a patent that they infringe? (Just a question for you to think about; not asking you to provide any detail on this forum.)

I believe there are regular law firms that might take an infringement case on contingency, but they might be hard to find.  On the other hand, there are companies such as patent holding companies that will take cases on a contingent fee basis and/or simply purchase a patent from an individual inventor, and then pursue the infringer in their own name.  The only one I can name off the top of my head is Rembrandt Technologies, which as far as I know pretty much has the sole business model of suing companies for infringement of patents that they (Rembrandt) had acquired from other parties.

[patentsusa]

I work with some contingency fee patent litigators and evaluate cases for them.  Before I will recommend that they take a case, I have to see:
1) a well written patent--it is amazing how many poorly written applications are out there full of patent profanity, having only one independent claim, having only method claims, having claims that are only infringed by end users, having only means-for clauses, etc.;
2) damages--since the cost of enforcement averages 1.5 million or so and we are only getting a portion of damages, we need damages of at least 10 million or so (using the reasonably royalty damages calculation method if there has been an offer to license);
3) a client who is willing to accept a financial result as opposed to one who is out for blood or to shut down the infringer;
4) clear literal infringement;
5) minimal harmful file history; and
6) preferably multiple infringers of various sizes, not just one or two big ones.

There are other ways to monetize patents, and I do have contacts with holding companies in Texas that have "negotiators" who enforce patents that are infringed by others.  The way one of them works, the way I understand it, is that they pay a small hourly consulting fee and high percentage only up to the first million or so in damages or royalties, then the percentage drops down significantly after that, with a net to the inventor being much lower than contingency fee litigation if there is a big win, but with some income to the inventor if there is a loss. With such an arrangement, they avoid having to take instructions from clients who are out for blood. 

For the patent to be valid, it has to be enabled.  That is, there has to be enough information that someone of ordinary skill in the art can make and use the invention.  You mentioned that you did not end up completing the software that was described in the patent.  This makes me wonder if the patent meets the enablement requirement. 

If there was any communication that would suggest that you intentionally abandoned the patent and have now changed your mind, there is a significant risk that even if you revived the patent, it would be invalid.

The majority of inventors do not make money from their patents.  The ones who I have seen achieve success are those who are venture funded start-ups, those who actually manufacture the product they have patented, and those whose patents end up being infringed by others and who use contingency fee litigation.  In certain "hot" fashionable technology areas like Web 2.0, certain companies with ties to certain large software companies will buy patents to put them on the shelf.

From what I've heard, auctions are generating little interest these days and one of the only ways to monetize patents is through contingency fee enforcement.  The litigators are being highly selective in the cases they accept, so having a well drafted patent with clear infringement and minimal harmful file history is very important.

If you believe you meet the six points I've laid out above, I'd be happy to take a look at your patent offline and consider it for contingency fee enforcement, though the vetting process can take several months.  You should make a decision on whether to revive well before that.