Startups still face big challenges from U.S. patent law
The protection of intellectual property is no less important for smaller companies than it is for larger ones, and the technology industry is one of the most competitive landscapes for emerging businesses that need to ensure their IP is secured.
December 30, 2013 at 05:18 AM
2 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
The protection of intellectual property is no less important for smaller companies than it is for larger ones, and the technology industry is one of the most competitive landscapes for emerging businesses that need to ensure their IP is secured. Startups have a unique challenge in the patent protection world; their IP is basically the kernel they must protect in order to germinate and grow their technology, but tech giants are so aggressive with their patent litigation that startups often can't withstand the courtroom fees. Reports note that recent legislation brought through the U.S. Congress attempts to address the problems that have made patent protection imbalanced in favor of large corporations.
The Innovation Act — recently passed by the House of Representatives — and similar reform bills, aim to curb the willy-nilly patent protection practices of businesses that seek to edge out smaller entities.
Fee-shifting is one of the expanded provisions of the Innovation Act that is a supposed key demotivating factor for patent trolls and other groups that are increasingly litigious. Fee-shifting — according to Forbes – could end up being a welcome respite for startups, but also make the IP protection process trickier and more expensive overall.
Fee-shifting requires the non-prevailing party to cover the costs of litigation and other expenses of the prevailing party — a boon for startups with smaller bank rolls. But should the smaller group lose, and be required to cover the costs of the larger company. Thus, the startup might be more inclined to settle for licensing fees despite the chance that it could prevail in a patent lawsuit.
So — while the legislation aims at stemming the power of patent trolls — it could also deter smaller companies from actually taking larger groups to court for legitimate claims for fear that their pockets will be emptied. As the U.S. government muddles over the slew of patent reform legislation arriving at the floor, the consideration of the role of the startup must be a significant one.
Further reading:
This content has been archived.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 AllCoinbase Hit With Antitrust Suit That Seeks to Change How Crypto Exchanges Operate
3 minute readBaker Botts' Biopharma Client Sues Former In-House Attorney, Others Alleging Extortion Scheme
Trending Stories
- 1Winston & Strawn Snags Sidley Austin Cross-Border Transactions Partner in Miami
- 2U.S. Attorney Markenzy Lapointe Stepped Down
- 3Slideshow: Judges Who've Retired But Didn't Step Down
- 4Husch Blackwell Hires Former Adobe Counsel to Oversee AI Advisory Offering
- 5CFPB Finalizes Rule Removing Medical Debt From Credit Reports
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