New report examines the economic cost of patent trolls
On a conference call, the reports author, Phil Goldberg of Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP, spoke about litigation prospecting.
October 11, 2013 at 04:15 AM
6 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Call them Patent Assertion Entities (PAE) or Non-practicing Entities (NPE). Or, if you will, call them “Patent Trolls.” But now matter how you label them, there are certainly organizations that are trying to game the system and turn a nice profit from patent litigation. But why has there been such an upswing in these types of suits in recent years? And what is the true economic cost of all of this? These are the types of questions that the folks at the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) hoped to answer.
On a conference call, the report's author, Phil Goldberg of Shook Hardy & Bacon LLP, spoke about “litigation prospecting.” He stated that current patent laws make this process easy. “Patents are so vague, so it's hard to tell if something is infringing. If someone claims infringement, the only way to resolve it is through litigating.” He cited figures, stating that it costs, on average, $1.6 million to get through discovery and $2.8 million if the case goes to trial. Those costs are high and borne by the defendants.
Since the “patent trolls” understand these costs, they will offer to settle for an amount far below the pain level, making it cheaper for defendants to drop the case. In the new PPI report, “Stumping Patent Trolls on the Bridge to Innovation,” Goldberg looks at three crosswinds that explain why these patent troll suits have exploded in recent years:
1) Opportunity: There has been an explosion in the number of patents recently, and many technologies incorporate a multitude of patents
2) Patent ambiguity: The patents are written in such a way that companies involved are unclear as to whether infringement is occurring
3) Litigation manipulation: Trolls can target companies that are “easy marks,” ones that have little choice but to settle.
Recently, Congress and the President have called for patent reform, but it remains to be seen if the federal government can get past a number of other roadblocks to enact this type of legislation.
Call them Patent Assertion Entities (PAE) or Non-practicing Entities (NPE). Or, if you will, call them “Patent Trolls.” But now matter how you label them, there are certainly organizations that are trying to game the system and turn a nice profit from patent litigation. But why has there been such an upswing in these types of suits in recent years? And what is the true economic cost of all of this? These are the types of questions that the folks at the Progressive Policy Institute (PPI) hoped to answer.
On a conference call, the report's author, Phil Goldberg of
Since the “patent trolls” understand these costs, they will offer to settle for an amount far below the pain level, making it cheaper for defendants to drop the case. In the new PPI report, “Stumping Patent Trolls on the Bridge to Innovation,” Goldberg looks at three crosswinds that explain why these patent troll suits have exploded in recent years:
1) Opportunity: There has been an explosion in the number of patents recently, and many technologies incorporate a multitude of patents
2) Patent ambiguity: The patents are written in such a way that companies involved are unclear as to whether infringement is occurring
3) Litigation manipulation: Trolls can target companies that are “easy marks,” ones that have little choice but to settle.
Recently, Congress and the President have called for patent reform, but it remains to be seen if the federal government can get past a number of other roadblocks to enact this type of legislation.
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 AllWhat to Know About the New 'Overlapping Directorship' Antitrust Development
4 minute readTurning Over Legal Tedium to AI Requires Lots of Unglamorous Work on Front End
6 minute readThe Met Hires GC of Elite University as Next Legal Chief
Tesla, Musk Appeal Chancery Compensation Case to Delaware Supreme Court
2 minute readTrending Stories
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