4 ms·

IANAL; how would a precedent help future cases like this? They make it sounds like the slow and expensive process of just participating in the legal system is

IANAL; how would a precedent help future cases like this? They make it sounds like the slow and expensive process of just participating in the legal system is what enables trolling, not the actual prior opinions of courts.

jedberg 8y ago
IAalsoNAL, but my understanding is if there were a bunch of opinions overturning claims of trolls, it would change the calculus of settlement and therefore make it too expensive to be a troll because of the high risk of loss. Yes, the long trial lengths are also a problem, and maybe an easier one to fix, by adding expedited hearings just for these things. But at the end of the day the trolls troll because the reward is greater than the risk.
- URSpider94 8y ago
  First of all, it’s not clear that they could have taken this to trial, as the judge didn’t see a basis for argument (that’s what summary judgment means). Second, there is no legal theory or precedent that I’m aware of that would factor in the troll-ish nature of the plaintiff in a patent ruling. Patent trolls lose because they are usually stretching to apply vague patent claims to a large number of targets. Finally, trolls have a heavily uneven playing field. Most troll farms have in-house counsel, so they have very low litigation costs. Also, they typically segregate every patent or patent family into a separate corporate entity so that any fee or damage awards won’t claw back overall winnings.
pseudolus 8y ago
This particular case is explicitly non-precedential as is indicated on the top of the first page. The decision was made under Rule 36 of the Rules of Practice of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit which allows the Court to enter a judgment without an opinion. The case might be precedential in the business logic sense in that potential trolls will have to alter their calculus to take into account that companies will no longer roll over and pay token amounts simply to exit litigation. Also complicating their calculus is an earlier decision from the Supreme Court (Octane Fitness, LLC v. Icon Health & Fitness) which effectively made it substantially easier for a prevailing party to recoup their legal fees in patent related matters.
kevin_b_er 8y ago
It does. Spend $X00,000 defending against us, or $X0,000 on a settlement is the proposition they put out.

jedberg 8y ago

IAalsoNAL, but my understanding is if there were a bunch of opinions overturning claims of trolls, it would change the calculus of settlement and therefore make it too expensive to be a troll because of the high risk of loss. Yes, the long trial lengths are also a problem, and maybe an easier one to fix, by adding expedited hearings just for these things. But at the end of the day the trolls troll because the reward is greater than the risk.

URSpider94 8y ago
First of all, it’s not clear that they could have taken this to trial, as the judge didn’t see a basis for argument (that’s what summary judgment means). Second, there is no legal theory or precedent that I’m aware of that would factor in the troll-ish nature of the plaintiff in a patent ruling. Patent trolls lose because they are usually stretching to apply vague patent claims to a large number of targets. Finally, trolls have a heavily uneven playing field. Most troll farms have in-house counsel, so they have very low litigation costs. Also, they typically segregate every patent or patent family into a separate corporate entity so that any fee or damage awards won’t claw back overall winnings.

pseudolus 8y ago

This particular case is explicitly non-precedential as is indicated on the top of the first page. The decision was made under Rule 36 of the Rules of Practice of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit which allows the Court to enter a judgment without an opinion. The case might be precedential in the business logic sense in that potential trolls will have to alter their calculus to take into account that companies will no longer roll over and pay token amounts simply to exit litigation. Also complicating their calculus is an earlier decision from the Supreme Court (Octane Fitness, LLC v. Icon Health & Fitness) which effectively made it substantially easier for a prevailing party to recoup their legal fees in patent related matters.

kevin_b_er 8y ago

It does. Spend $X00,000 defending against us, or $X0,000 on a settlement is the proposition they put out.