Vermont sues patent troll for violating state laws
Patent trolls have a new enemythe State of Vermont.
May 23, 2013 at 08:14 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Patent trolls have a new enemy—the State of Vermont. On Wednesday, the state sued MPHJ Technology Investments, a non-practicing entity or patent troll, accusing it of violating state laws by threatening infringement lawsuits to small businesses that did not pay licensing fees.
Patent trolls are a known nuisance in the legal world—businesses that hold patents but don't produce products, and rely on patent infringement lawsuits and licensing fees for their income.
According to the lawsuit, MPHJ sent letters to companies saying they had potentially infringed on MPHJ's scanner technology, and requested licensing fees or confirmation that the companies weren't infringing the patents. The letters suggested that $900-$1200 per employee was a fair price for the licensing fees. The lawsuit claims that licensing fees are typically much lower and the letters are attempting to deceive businesses.
Vermont is seeking an injunction to bar MPHJ from sending any more letters to businesses in the state, and up to $10,000 in penalties for each of the troll's violations of Vermont's consumer protection act.
Read more at Thomson Reuters.
For more InsideCounsel coverage of patent trolls, see below:
Patent trolls have a new enemy—the State of Vermont. On Wednesday, the state sued MPHJ Technology Investments, a non-practicing entity or patent troll, accusing it of violating state laws by threatening infringement lawsuits to small businesses that did not pay licensing fees.
Patent trolls are a known nuisance in the legal world—businesses that hold patents but don't produce products, and rely on patent infringement lawsuits and licensing fees for their income.
According to the lawsuit, MPHJ sent letters to companies saying they had potentially infringed on MPHJ's scanner technology, and requested licensing fees or confirmation that the companies weren't infringing the patents. The letters suggested that $900-$1200 per employee was a fair price for the licensing fees. The lawsuit claims that licensing fees are typically much lower and the letters are attempting to deceive businesses.
Vermont is seeking an injunction to bar MPHJ from sending any more letters to businesses in the state, and up to $10,000 in penalties for each of the troll's violations of Vermont's consumer protection act.
Read more at Thomson Reuters.
For more InsideCounsel coverage of patent trolls, see below:
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllWhite Castle GC Becomes Chain's First President From Outside Family
DLA Piper Adds Former Verizon GC Amid In-House Hiring Spree
Trending Stories
- 1H&R Block Accused of Negligence in Data Breach Suit
- 2Apple Disputes 'Efforts to Manufacture' Imaging Sensor Claims Against iPhone 15 Technology
- 3Following Treasury Hack, Do Federal Cybersecurity Standards Need an Update?
- 4Former Capital One Deputy GC Takes Legal Reins of AIG Spinoff
- 5‘Old Home Week’: Justice Breyer Hears Challenge to Cruise Ship Ordinance in 1st Circuit
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250