In-house counsel urge lawmakers to quell patent trolls with antitrust laws
Patent trolls, much like regular trolls, are known for running around making nuisances of themselves. But could they be an antitrust problem?
March 15, 2013 at 06:24 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Patent trolls, much like regular trolls, are known for running around making nuisances of themselves. But could they be an antitrust problem?
Some in-house counsel think so, and told U.S. lawmakers as much at a hearing on Thursday, Thomson Reuters reports.
Trolls are companies whose whole purpose of being is to buy up patents, then file infringement lawsuits or demand licensing fees for those patents. Defending against these suits costs corporations millions of dollars per year.
Rep. Howard Coble of North Carolina, chair of the House subcommittee on intellectual property, questioned witnesses at the hearing about whether the government should invoke antitrust law to help deal with the copious amount of patent suits.
Both J.C. Penney Co. Inc. General Counsel Janet Dhillon and Cisco Systems Inc. General Counsel Mark Chandler responded affirmatively.
“The patent aggregation efforts deserve very close antitrust scrutiny,” Chandler said. “They have the impact across whole industries of forcing settlements (of patent suits) and suppressing competition in ways that are not intended as part of the patent grant.”
The Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission held a joint public workshop in December to consider this issue, and are taking public comment until April 5.
Read more about patent trolls on InsideCounsel:
IP: Federal Circuit weakens Internet patent troll model
Majority of patent lawsuits brought by trolls
Technology: Can you learn to love a troll?
Patent trolls may have to pay legal costs
Patent trolls, much like regular trolls, are known for running around making nuisances of themselves. But could they be an antitrust problem?
Some in-house counsel think so, and told U.S. lawmakers as much at a hearing on Thursday, Thomson Reuters reports.
Trolls are companies whose whole purpose of being is to buy up patents, then file infringement lawsuits or demand licensing fees for those patents. Defending against these suits costs corporations millions of dollars per year.
Rep. Howard Coble of North Carolina, chair of the House subcommittee on intellectual property, questioned witnesses at the hearing about whether the government should invoke antitrust law to help deal with the copious amount of patent suits.
Both
“The patent aggregation efforts deserve very close antitrust scrutiny,” Chandler said. “They have the impact across whole industries of forcing settlements (of patent suits) and suppressing competition in ways that are not intended as part of the patent grant.”
The Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission held a joint public workshop in December to consider this issue, and are taking public comment until April 5.
Read more about patent trolls on InsideCounsel:
IP: Federal Circuit weakens Internet patent troll model
Majority of patent lawsuits brought by trolls
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 All
Former Capital One Deputy GC Takes Legal Reins of AIG Spinoff
Legal Departments Dinged for Acquiescing to Rate Hikes That 'Defy Gravity'
4 minute read
Apple Disputes 'Efforts to Manufacture' Imaging Sensor Claims Against iPhone 15 Technology
Trending Stories
- 1Many LA County Law Firms Remain Open, Mobilize to Support Affected Employees Amid Historic Firestorm
- 2Stevens & Lee Names New Delaware Shareholder
- 3U.S. Supreme Court Denies Trump Effort to Halt Sentencing
- 4From CLO to President: Kevin Boon Takes the Helm at Mysten Labs
- 5How Law Schools Fared on California's July 2024 Bar Exam
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
