3 ms·

Requiring patent holders to go after the largest infringer would tilt the table sharply in favor of large companies. Lawsuits involving the largest corporation

Requiring patent holders to go after the largest infringer would tilt the table sharply in favor of large companies. Lawsuits involving the largest corporations are enormously expensive affairs. Especially in the USA, with our extremely expansive rules for what information is discoverable in civil cases. That's part of why they so rarely make it to court when it's big companies suing other big companies. When it's small companies suing big companies, that asymmetry makes it really tough. And a small company suing a big company for patent infringement is likely already feeling some pain in the pocketbook. But if a small company whose patents are being infringed can start out by getting a judgment in their favor in a case that's less expensive to pursue, that will give them a big leg up when the time comes to take on the big guys. A rule saying that you have to go after the largest infringer would take that away.

georgemcbay 13y ago
I don't really agree with this for a couple of reasons. One is that juries, by and large, tend to favor David in David and Goliath cases. Also, it shouldn't be that hard to find competent lawyers willing to work on contingency to take meaningful patent case against a larger corporation if they get a percentage of the damages. For cases where the patent isn't that strong to begin with or the infringement isn't very clear cut and thus the lawyer's EV is very low, well then fuck the little guy anyway, he shouldn't be patent trolling in the first place.
- bmm6o 13y ago
  It doesn't matter if you're likely to win if you can't afford to litigate. > it shouldn't be that hard to find competent lawyers willing to work on contingency to take meaningful patent case Yeah, that's why it happens all the time. (hint, it doesn't).
  - bunderbunder 13y ago
    Y'know, it's becoming increasingly common in patent law, and the trend is disturbingly closely related to the rise of patent trolling. The oversupply of lawyers in the USA has become so great that many attorneys will take on anything at this point, including patent cases on contingency. And that makes it easy for businesses to hop on board, since the cost to them is so low.

georgemcbay 13y ago

I don't really agree with this for a couple of reasons. One is that juries, by and large, tend to favor David in David and Goliath cases. Also, it shouldn't be that hard to find competent lawyers willing to work on contingency to take meaningful patent case against a larger corporation if they get a percentage of the damages. For cases where the patent isn't that strong to begin with or the infringement isn't very clear cut and thus the lawyer's EV is very low, well then fuck the little guy anyway, he shouldn't be patent trolling in the first place.

bmm6o 13y ago
It doesn't matter if you're likely to win if you can't afford to litigate. > it shouldn't be that hard to find competent lawyers willing to work on contingency to take meaningful patent case Yeah, that's why it happens all the time. (hint, it doesn't).
- bunderbunder 13y ago
  Y'know, it's becoming increasingly common in patent law, and the trend is disturbingly closely related to the rise of patent trolling. The oversupply of lawyers in the USA has become so great that many attorneys will take on anything at this point, including patent cases on contingency. And that makes it easy for businesses to hop on board, since the cost to them is so low.