6 ms·

>Recent case decisions have flipped the script for small companies targeted by patent trolls. It would be interesting to see examples of this. What were the ou

>Recent case decisions have flipped the script for small companies targeted by patent trolls. It would be interesting to see examples of this. What were the outcomes of these cases and how did judges reach those decisions? Many thanks for your time.

fncypants 8y ago
In 2014 the Supreme Court ruled in Alice v CLS that computer inventions that claim “abstract ideas” are invalid. What happened in the years following is that the lower courts took this as an opportunity to weed out the crappy patents that were previously good extortion assets. Around the same time, the Supreme Court in Octane Fitness granted lower courts more discretion to shift fees and force losing plaintiffs to pay the defense costs for an unreasonable patent infringement claim. Also, in 2012 Congress passed the American Invents Act that created an Inter Partes Review proceeding at the patent office that lets accused infringers (or others) challenge the invalidity of patents more cheaply than a full trial and often to stop a trial pending its resolution. All these combined have resulted in substantially lower troll demands, and more reluctance by trolls to follow through with an extortionate case. Good precedent is in Inventor Holdings v. Bed Bath Beyond at the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. The holding is that a lower court can decide that if a plaintiff turns a blind eye to how bad it’s sotware patent is in light of _Alice_ and doesn’t drop its case, it can award the defendant its attorney fees. This particular case went on far, far too long and the court awarded almost $1M in defendant’s fees to be paid.
- dahdum 8y ago
  Are they ever able to collect those defendants fees? I thought it was common to transfer the IP and file with the new shell company, who would then file bankruptcy in case of an award. Also thank you for that detail.
  - fncypants 8y ago
    It depends. I have obtained three orders to pay my client’s fees and all were paid in full. There is precedent (from an EDTX judge, no less) finding the plaintiff’s lawyer and the individual behind the troll liable when they were ordered to pay fees but tried to play that shell game. [0] [0] https://insight.rpxcorp.com/news/7795 https://insight.rpxcorp.com/news/7795
    - thehnguy 8y ago
      Yep. When the lawyers/firms were personally on the hook for the fees, it scared them a lot. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/01/original-patent-troll-law-firm-is-shutting-down/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/01/original-patent-...
- thehnguy 8y ago
  Another lawyer here. I think Octane Fitness was what really did in most parent trolls. Before the trolls were extorting small companies and playing the lottery with big companies (might win and get a huge settlement/judgement). With the risk of fees being assessed the price of entry is getting higher. We’re seeing the same thing now with disability accessibility suits. There’s a push to allow fee shifting in an effort to mitigate those exploitive cases. The trolls are in it for money. Unsurprisingly then, when there’s the risk that THEY might lose money they’re quicker to back down.
- nwenzel 8y ago
  Link to the referenced cases: Alice v CLS: https://casetext.com/case/alice-corp-v-cls-bank-intl https://casetext.com/case/alice-corp-v-cls-bank-intl Inventor Holdings v Bed Bath Beyond (multiple): https://casetext.com/search?q=Inventor%20holdings%20v.%20Bed%20bath%20%26%20beyond&p=1&tab=keyword&jxs=&sort=relevance&type=case https://casetext.com/search?q=Inventor%20holdings%20v.%20Bed...

fncypants 8y ago

In 2014 the Supreme Court ruled in Alice v CLS that computer inventions that claim “abstract ideas” are invalid. What happened in the years following is that the lower courts took this as an opportunity to weed out the crappy patents that were previously good extortion assets. Around the same time, the Supreme Court in Octane Fitness granted lower courts more discretion to shift fees and force losing plaintiffs to pay the defense costs for an unreasonable patent infringement claim. Also, in 2012 Congress passed the American Invents Act that created an Inter Partes Review proceeding at the patent office that lets accused infringers (or others) challenge the invalidity of patents more cheaply than a full trial and often to stop a trial pending its resolution. All these combined have resulted in substantially lower troll demands, and more reluctance by trolls to follow through with an extortionate case. Good precedent is in Inventor Holdings v. Bed Bath Beyond at the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. The holding is that a lower court can decide that if a plaintiff turns a blind eye to how bad it’s sotware patent is in light of _Alice_ and doesn’t drop its case, it can award the defendant its attorney fees. This particular case went on far, far too long and the court awarded almost $1M in defendant’s fees to be paid.

dahdum 8y ago
Are they ever able to collect those defendants fees? I thought it was common to transfer the IP and file with the new shell company, who would then file bankruptcy in case of an award. Also thank you for that detail.
- fncypants 8y ago
  It depends. I have obtained three orders to pay my client’s fees and all were paid in full. There is precedent (from an EDTX judge, no less) finding the plaintiff’s lawyer and the individual behind the troll liable when they were ordered to pay fees but tried to play that shell game. [0] [0] https://insight.rpxcorp.com/news/7795 https://insight.rpxcorp.com/news/7795
  - thehnguy 8y ago
    Yep. When the lawyers/firms were personally on the hook for the fees, it scared them a lot. https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/01/original-patent-troll-law-firm-is-shutting-down/ https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/01/original-patent-...
thehnguy 8y ago
Another lawyer here. I think Octane Fitness was what really did in most parent trolls. Before the trolls were extorting small companies and playing the lottery with big companies (might win and get a huge settlement/judgement). With the risk of fees being assessed the price of entry is getting higher. We’re seeing the same thing now with disability accessibility suits. There’s a push to allow fee shifting in an effort to mitigate those exploitive cases. The trolls are in it for money. Unsurprisingly then, when there’s the risk that THEY might lose money they’re quicker to back down.
nwenzel 8y ago
Link to the referenced cases: Alice v CLS: https://casetext.com/case/alice-corp-v-cls-bank-intl https://casetext.com/case/alice-corp-v-cls-bank-intl Inventor Holdings v Bed Bath Beyond (multiple): https://casetext.com/search?q=Inventor%20holdings%20v.%20Bed%20bath%20%26%20beyond&p=1&tab=keyword&jxs=&sort=relevance&type=case https://casetext.com/search?q=Inventor%20holdings%20v.%20Bed...