Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Combatting Patent Trolls

By Rob Maier
December 01, 2024

By Rob Maier

A subject of extensive debate within the U.S. patent system has been the classification of “patent trolls” — most widely defined as individuals or companies that acquire patents solely for the purpose of assertion, often in cases without any merit, but which leverage the high cost of patent litigation defense to force small settlements. Sometimes, these entities are more charitably described as non-practicing entities (NPEs) — i.e., entities that do not use or practice the technologies claimed in the patents they own.
However, differences in approach and behavior generally separate the most notorious “patent trolls” from other types of NPEs (such as, for example, universities and research institutions that develop, but do not commercialize, new technologies). Ultimately, trolls are often characterized by the widespread assertion of baseless claims calculated to draw nuisance-value settlements.
A number of measures have been enacted in the U.S. patent system to combat the troll problem. Following the lobbying of big tech and others, the 2011 enactment of the America Invents Act provided a significant overhaul of the U.S. patent laws, and with it a number of tools for defending assertions of bad patents. The most popular among these is the introduction of inter partes review proceedings at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, which allow parties to challenge the validity of patents, giving the patent office a “second look” in a trial-like proceeding that has become the tool of choice for invalidating bad patents. But despite these new options, the troll problem has persisted.
More recently, in situations of particularly egregious behavior, federal courts have increasingly begun to impose various disciplinary measures on patent trolls — and even their attorneys — including sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 11 and 35 U.S.C. Section 285. These types of sanctions decisions are becoming more common, and possibly even signal a new trend in federal judges increasingly taking patent trolls to task.
When patent trolls or their attorneys commit particularly egregious conduct, courts can order sanctions using a number of mechanisms. One of the most common is Rule 11.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
  • Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
  • Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
New York's Latest Cybersecurity Commitment Image

On Aug. 9, 2023, Gov. Kathy Hochul introduced New York's inaugural comprehensive cybersecurity strategy. In sum, the plan aims to update government networks, bolster county-level digital defenses, and regulate critical infrastructure.

Law Firms are Reducing Redundant Real Estate by Bringing Support Services Back to the Office Image

A trend analysis of the benefits and challenges of bringing back administrative, word processing and billing services to law offices.

Bit Parts Image

Summary Judgment Denied Defendant in Declaratory Action by Producer of To Kill a Mockingbird Broadway Play Seeking Amateur Theatrical Rights

The Bankruptcy Hotline Image

Recent cases of importance to your practice.

How AI Has Affected PR Image

When we consider how the use of AI affects legal PR and communications, we have to look at it as an industrywide global phenomenon. A recent online conference provided an overview of the latest AI trends in public relations, and specifically, the impact of AI on communications. Here are some of the key points and takeaways from several of the speakers, who provided current best practices, tips, concerns and case studies.