Top U.S. patent troll sues the government for interfering with its business
One of the most well-known patent trolls in the United States and some would say the most innovative MPHJ Technology has recently filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, claiming that the agencys interference with its business are in violation of its constitutional rights.
January 17, 2014 at 04:30 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
One of the most well-known patent trolls in the United States and some would say the most innovative MPHJ Technology has recently filed a lawsuit against the U.S. Federal Trade Commission, claiming that the agency's interference with its business are in violation of its constitutional rights.
MPHJ is demanding royalties of $1,000 from each employee from companies that own networked scanners with a scan to email function. The company sent letters to 16,000 businesses, warning them that their use of scanners is in violation of its patents. Those are in addition to the thousands of letters sent by the previous owner of the patents.
Attorneys general in Minnesota, Nebraska, New York, and Vermont have taken various actions against the company, and the FTC has warned MPHJ could face legal action from the government. But, in documents filed with the U.S. District Court in the Western District of Texas, MPHJ argues that not only are the state actions against it baseless, but that the FTC's interference is unconstitutional.
“The relief that is requested by this suit is warranted because the actions of the FTC Defendants are in violation of the U.S. Constitution, federal law, the FTC Defendant's jurisdictional authority, and the relevant facts,” MPHJ's owner-cum-counsel, the Texas law firm Farney Daniels, wrote in the filing.
According to the suit, the FTC lacks jurisdiction to intervene in MPHJ's patent assertion activities because they do not constitute acts or practices in or affecting commerce. MPHJ's letters to companies “did not offer any good or service for sale,” the filing states.
The suit claims the FTC can't stop MPHJ from sending letters claiming patent rights, because these letters are protected under its First Amendment right to free speech. The FTC has argued that MPHJ's letters to companies constituted illegal “threats to sue without intent to sue,” but MPHJ says the agency has no evidence to support that claim.
Furthermore, the suit observes that the FTC has threatened to sue Farney Daniels over its representation of MPHJ, which the company alleges is a violation of its constitutional right to choose its own counsel and an improper attempt by the FTC to regulate the practice of law.
Earlier this week, New York State Attorney General Eric Schneiderman announced that the state has reached a settlement with MPHJ that requires it to refund any money it has collected from New York businesses so far and bars it from further contact with businesses it has targeted.
“State law enforcement can't cure all the ills of the federal patent system,” Schneiderman said in a statement, “but the guidelines established in today's settlement will put an end to some of the most abusive tactics by placing the industry on notice that these deceptive practices will not be tolerated in New York.”
MPHJ's actions have helped bring the patent troll issue to the spotlight. General counsel and state attorneys general alike have turned their attention to the issue, and an assortment of AGs and GCs will be speaking about the topic at an upcoming roundtable event. The free event will take place on Feb. 4, 2014 from 3:00-5:00 pm at the Intercontinental New York Barclay. It will feature the attorneys general from Nebraska, Missouri and Vermont as well as the general counsel from Walmart, du Pont and Rackspace. For more information, or to register for the event, click here.
For more on patent trolls, check out these articles:
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
© 2024 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 AllFinancial Watchdog Alleges Walmart Forced Army of Gig-Worker Drivers to Receive Pay Through High-Fee Accounts
GC Pleads Guilty to Embezzling $7.4 Million From 3 Banks
'Serious Disruptions'?: Federal Courts Brace for Government Shutdown Threat
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Decision of the Day: Judge Reduces $287M Jury Verdict Against Harley-Davidson in Wrongful Death Suit
- 2Kirkland to Covington: 2024's International Chart Toppers and Award Winners
- 3Decision of the Day: Judge Denies Summary Judgment Motions in Suit by Runner Injured in Brooklyn Bridge Park
- 4KISS, Profit Motive and Foreign Currency Contracts
- 512 Days of … Web Analytics
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