Controlling the Trolls: Federal, State, and Private Actions to Curb Patent Troll Activities (Part 1)

Share on Twitter+1Share on LinkedInSubmit to StumbleUpon

Beware: Patent Trolls are on the loose.

In an ideal world, patents provide an avenue for individuals and businesses to earn a reasonable rate of return on their ingenuity and diligence.  Unfortunately, the patent system has flaws that have been exploited by some for financial gain unrelated to their own efforts.  These entities, referred to as Non-Practicing Entities, Patent Assertion Entities, Patent Privateers, or, more commonly, patent trolls, have engendered tremendous animosity through their use of extortionist tactics to extract licensing fees from businesses.

For the uninitiated, patent trolls purchase patents, apply for and obtain patents, or enter into agreements to enforce the rights of patent owners, and then use these patents to extract license fees by threatening other businesses with a lawsuit.  Typically, the license fees are in an amount that makes defending a patent infringement claim, even on a very questionable patent, a poor business decision due to the cost of litigation.

The federal government, the judiciary, private industry, and, more recently, state governments, are all involved in trying to curb patent troll activity.  The challenge is curtailing the vexatious practice employed by patent trolls without affecting proper licensing and patent enforcement practices of businesses, individual inventors, and universities.  Over the next several posts, I’m going to summarize recent efforts to address patent troll activity, discuss the pros and cons, and theorize as to what additional steps could be taken.

Since regulating patents and patent law is the primary domain of the federal government, it is fitting to start there:

Federal Activity

  • Immunization of Purchasers of Commodities
    • During a hearing of the House Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property and the Internet, Congressman Blake Farenthold (R-TX), indicated that federal legislation could be proposed to immunize end users of certain types of products from patent litigation.  For example, if a business buys a device, such as a computer, scanner, etc., and is using it in its intended way, this business could not be sued for patent infringement – although the manufacturer could be.
      • Pros
        • Limits a patent troll’s ability to go after “small fish” that are less likely to fight a claim of infringement.
        • Allows businesses to worry less about the potential infringement liability associated with their purchases
      • Cons
        • It will be difficult to determine which products are “commodities” and thus fall under the exemption
        • Methods or processes (i.e., most software patents) are not commodities
        • Limits the ability of parties to negotiate on indemnification for patent infringement, which may increase costs of products as manufacturers take on increased potential liabilities
        • Manufacturers may claim that their products are not “commodities” in order to avoid liability
  • SHIELD Act
    • The Act implements a new “loser pays” rule, requiring certain patent-owning parties to pay the legal costs of the other party if a court finds no infringement or that the patent is invalid.
    • The Act also requires a bond from the patent owner.
      • Pros
        • The “loser pays” rule may limit the pool of entities a patent troll is willing to attack.
        • Bond requirement will limit suits brought by trolls because few have the collateral that will likely be required in order to secure the bond.
      • Cons
        • The Act will offer no real protection to smaller businesses because they are less likely to have the means to litigate in the first place.
        • A patentee doesn’t have to bring suit, and patent trolls often avoid it – thus, an entity under attack from a patent troll may have to bring a declaratory judgment action.
        • If a business is not the “original assignee” of a patent (or falls under another exemption), the business would be subject to the Act if it asserted the patent against another entity – this could diminish the value of patents as saleable assets.
        • In order to recover legal fees as required by the Act, the defendant has to win in some respect, but statistically there is not much difference between the success of suits launched by patent trolls and those initiated by others.
    • Other questions are found here.
  • Patent Quality Improvement Act
    • This Act, proposed by Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY), proposes a process by which all patent cases will be vetted by the USPTO prior to being allowed to go forward.
      • Pros
        • May limit which patents a patent troll is willing to assert and against whom – if the patent has questionable validity, the patent troll may be more likely to only go after smaller entities to avoid the possibility of litigation.
        • May be an inexpensive way to avoid using one of the current post-issuance review processes available at the USPTO while getting a similar result.
        • If the USPTO’s “broadest reasonable construction” for patent claims is used, this could invalidate more patents than other interpretations.
      • Cons
        • As with the Shield Act, this bill won’t apply unless a lawsuit is filed; it may be necessary to file a declaratory judgment action in order to get USPTO review.
        • As reported on CNET, “‘The problem with a system like this is that, in all likelihood, most patents reviewed will survive and actually become more formidable as a result,’ says Brian J. Love, an assistant professor at the Santa Clara University School of Law.  ‘When patents do survive additional scrutiny, their owners then have a strong rhetorical argument: this patent is so strong it survived PTO scrutiny not once, but twice…thus, under the guise of eliminating bad patents, we often end up making them more troublesome.’”
        • The USPTO can only determine issues of validity of the patent, not issues of infringement.  Thus, a lawsuit by a troll may still proceed even if it is facially illegitimate so long as the patent is valid

In sum, while the federal government is engaged with this issue, it appears that the current legislation under consideration will not do much to assist small- to medium-sized businesses from the ire of patent trolls.  However, as I shall explain later, these changes, if coupled with others, may form a more comprehensive scheme to assist all businesses.

Picture credit:



  1. […] we would be better off with a federal solution to a federal problem.  I’ve discussed the current piecemeal attempts circulating through congress currently and here is another that just popped up.  Unfortunately, […]

  2. […] federal and state governments are all invested in trying to curb patent trolling activities and for the first time, an attorney general (AG) has attempted to sue alleged patent troll under […]

  3. […] federal and state governments are all invested in trying to curb patent trolling activities and for the first time, an attorney general (AG) has attempted to sue an alleged patent troll under […]