Patent trolls increasingly reliant on “business method” suits says survey
According to a recent report by PatentFreedom, an analytics company that identifies and classifies patents, trolls have begun to target a new line of litigation: business method lawsuits.
September 05, 2013 at 07:51 AM
5 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
The popular view of the “patent troll” is a litigious company that sits on a small property, just hoping some larger tech company implements their “patented” technology so the troll can sue for infringement. For years, that's how trolls have functioned and, in some cases, thrived.
But according to a recent report by PatentFreedom, an analytics company that identifies and classifies patents, trolls have begun to target a new line of litigation: “business method” lawsuits.
The report says 41 percent of all patent troll suits in 2011-2012 dealt with the way a company operates its business. PatentFreedom claims that the 954 different patent troll suits targeted “the practice, administration, or management of an enterprise, the processing of financial data, or the determination of the charge for goods and services.” This could be anything from the company's method of online payment to the search function on the company's website.
This 41 percent figure is a new high mark, rising 14 percent from just six years ago (2005-2006). In 2009-2010, 38 percent of patent troll suits dealt with companies' business methods.
Surprisingly, despite the reputation of trolls attacking technology companies, only 42 percent of all business method suits were against tech businesses. Retailers in particular have seen business method suits become much more common, with the proportion of business method suits out of all patent troll lawsuits rising from 27 percent in 2005-2006 to 51 percent in 2011-2012.
The PatentFreedom survey also reports that patent trolls are starting to think smaller as well. 43 percent of all business method suits are against companies who took in less than $100 million in revenue last year. That is up 10 percent from 2005-2006.
Check out the results of the PatentFreedom survey here (PDF).
For more on the evil patent trolls, check out these InsideCounsel stories:
New ad campaign looks to shine the spotlight on patent trolls
Apple the most targeted technology company by patent trolls
Minnesota AG takes a stand against patent trolls
Facts & Figures: Companies now facing more litigation
The popular view of the “patent troll” is a litigious company that sits on a small property, just hoping some larger tech company implements their “patented” technology so the troll can sue for infringement. For years, that's how trolls have functioned and, in some cases, thrived.
But according to a recent report by PatentFreedom, an analytics company that identifies and classifies patents, trolls have begun to target a new line of litigation: “business method” lawsuits.
The report says 41 percent of all patent troll suits in 2011-2012 dealt with the way a company operates its business. PatentFreedom claims that the 954 different patent troll suits targeted “the practice, administration, or management of an enterprise, the processing of financial data, or the determination of the charge for goods and services.” This could be anything from the company's method of online payment to the search function on the company's website.
This 41 percent figure is a new high mark, rising 14 percent from just six years ago (2005-2006). In 2009-2010, 38 percent of patent troll suits dealt with companies' business methods.
Surprisingly, despite the reputation of trolls attacking technology companies, only 42 percent of all business method suits were against tech businesses. Retailers in particular have seen business method suits become much more common, with the proportion of business method suits out of all patent troll lawsuits rising from 27 percent in 2005-2006 to 51 percent in 2011-2012.
The PatentFreedom survey also reports that patent trolls are starting to think smaller as well. 43 percent of all business method suits are against companies who took in less than $100 million in revenue last year. That is up 10 percent from 2005-2006.
Check out the results of the PatentFreedom survey here (PDF).
For more on the evil patent trolls, check out these InsideCounsel stories:
New ad campaign looks to shine the spotlight on patent 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 AllFormer Capital One Deputy GC Takes Legal Reins of AIG Spinoff
Legal Departments Dinged for Acquiescing to Rate Hikes That 'Defy Gravity'
4 minute readApple Disputes 'Efforts to Manufacture' Imaging Sensor Claims Against iPhone 15 Technology
Trending Stories
- 1Stevens & Lee Names New Delaware Shareholder
- 2U.S. Supreme Court Denies Trump Effort to Halt Sentencing
- 3From CLO to President: Kevin Boon Takes the Helm at Mysten Labs
- 4How Law Schools Fared on California's July 2024 Bar Exam
- 5'Discordant Dots': Why Phila. Zantac Judge Rejected Bid for His Recusal
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