Are ‘Patent Trolls’ guilty of extortion and racketeering?
No matter how you say it, there is no doubt that companies who fear litigation from so-called patent trolls have a new weapon in their arsenal, thanks to bold action by California-based FindTheBest.
September 19, 2013 at 07:22 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
There are several old adages that apply here: “If you can't beat 'em, join 'em” and “fight fire with fire” come to mind. But no matter how you say it, there is no doubt that companies who fear litigation from so-called patent trolls have a new weapon in their arsenal, thanks to bold action by California-based FindTheBest.
The CEO of FindTheBest, Kevin O'Connor, was not willing to sit back and let patent assertion entity Lumen View Technology push him around. Lumen sued FindTheBest based on a patent that covered a “system and method for facilitating bilateral and multilateral decision-making.” O'Connor did not want to pay the $50,000 to put the matter to rest and, according to Ars Technica, when O'Connor tried to press Lumen View for more information, the company threatened him with criminal charges.
O'Connor would not put up with the bullying from Lumen View and decided to fight back. He saw Lumen View's actions as extortion, and decided to pursue that line of thinking by using the RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) Act. RICO was originally setup as a avenue for civil suits against criminal organizations in 1970, allowing for the persecution of those who had ordered others to commit crimes.
This is not the first time that someone has tried to use the RICO act against a PAE. The Yale Journal of Law and Technology suggested such in 2009, in part because it covered intellectual property crimes and carries with it stiff penalties.
The tactic has not been entirely successful to date. In 2011, tech giants Cisco, Netgear and Motorola attempted to use it in a countersuit against a PAE known as Innovatio, which tried to sue owners of small businesses that used Wi-Fi technology. The countersuit was thrown out, however.
It remains to be seen what success FindTheBest will have with using RICO, but it gives companies another potential avenue for dealing with trolls. This, coupled with changes in patent law and a renewed federal focus on patent reform, will give businesses at least a fighting chance against the threat of patent trolls.
There are several old adages that apply here: “If you can't beat 'em, join 'em” and “fight fire with fire” come to mind. But no matter how you say it, there is no doubt that companies who fear litigation from so-called patent trolls have a new weapon in their arsenal, thanks to bold action by California-based FindTheBest.
The CEO of FindTheBest, Kevin O'Connor, was not willing to sit back and let patent assertion entity Lumen View Technology push him around. Lumen sued FindTheBest based on a patent that covered a “system and method for facilitating bilateral and multilateral decision-making.” O'Connor did not want to pay the $50,000 to put the matter to rest and, according to Ars Technica, when O'Connor tried to press Lumen View for more information, the company threatened him with criminal charges.
O'Connor would not put up with the bullying from Lumen View and decided to fight back. He saw Lumen View's actions as extortion, and decided to pursue that line of thinking by using the RICO (Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations) Act. RICO was originally setup as a avenue for civil suits against criminal organizations in 1970, allowing for the persecution of those who had ordered others to commit crimes.
This is not the first time that someone has tried to use the RICO act against a PAE. The Yale Journal of Law and Technology suggested such in 2009, in part because it covered intellectual property crimes and carries with it stiff penalties.
The tactic has not been entirely successful to date. In 2011, tech giants Cisco, Netgear and Motorola attempted to use it in a countersuit against a PAE known as Innovatio, which tried to sue owners of small businesses that used Wi-Fi technology. The countersuit was thrown out, however.
It remains to be seen what success FindTheBest will have with using RICO, but it gives companies another potential avenue for dealing with trolls. This, coupled with changes in patent law and a renewed federal focus on patent reform, will give businesses at least a fighting chance against the threat of 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 AllInternal Whistleblowing Surged Globally in 2024, So Why Were US Numbers Flat?
6 minute readInside Track: AI Is Sure to Fray Big Law's Devotion to Billable Hour
Trending Stories
- 1New York-Based Skadden Team Joins White & Case Group in Mexico City for Citigroup Demerger
- 2No Two Wildfires Alike: Lawyers Take Different Legal Strategies in California
- 3Poop-Themed Dog Toy OK as Parody, but Still Tarnished Jack Daniel’s Brand, Court Says
- 4Meet the New President of NY's Association of Trial Court Jurists
- 5Lawyers' Phones Are Ringing: What Should Employers Do If ICE Raids Their Business?
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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