Lawmakers continue to fight patent trolls with more realistic version of the Innovation Act
In addition to the Innovation Act, U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy introduced the Patent Transparency and Improvements Act of 2013 this past November to provide targeted organizations with additional security in patent claims.
January 10, 2014 at 04:49 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Patent trolls continue to be an ongoing issue in the ever-changing technology landscape as more and more large organizations purchase groups of patents with no intention of utilizing them in their products. With patent infringement claims not subsiding anytime soon, legal executives and lawmakers are working together to begin to curb abusive patent litigations from trolls that target businesses with lawsuits on their purchased patents.
So how do the smaller businesses protect themselves from being unnecessarily targeted? The first step that was taken this past year was the Innovation Act, a bill that was approved last month in a majority bipartisan vote of 325-91. The Act has since been sent to the Senate and is waiting on a final decision.
In addition to the Innovation Act, U.S. Sen. Patrick Leahy introduced the Patent Transparency and Improvements Act of 2013 this past November to provide targeted organizations with additional security in patent claims. A recent Legal Newsline report quoted Todd Dickinson, executive director of the American Intellectual Property Law Association calling the attempt to curb abusive patent litigation “the better approach.”
While the Patent Transparency and Improvements Act has been referred to as the less ambitious approach to the House's Innovation Act, they share the same intentions to increase transparency in patent ownership. According to the report, the organization that holds the patent and files the suit would have to disclose anyone with a financial interest in the case or that could be affected by the outcome. The bill also provides additional resources for small business that are targeted.
The biggest difference between the Patent Transparency and Improvements Act and the Innovation Act, is that the new Act does not include the provisions that would force patent infringement case management rules on the district courts. Lawmakers are concerned that these provisions could prove problematic in the long run.
In terms of next steps, the Act, which was assigned to a congressional committee in late November, must first be considered before it is sent on to the House or Senate for final ruling.
Interested in learning more about how states are dealing with the patent troll problem? Join the AGs from Vermont, Missouri and Nebraska, as well as GCs from Rackspace, duPont and Walmart for a roundtable discussion. The event will be take place on February 4, 2014 in New York City. To register, click here.
For related news on patent trolls, check out these related reports on InsideCounsel:
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 AllClass Certification, Cash-Sweep Cases Among Securities Litigation Trends to Watch in 2025
6 minute readNLRB Blisters Skilled Care Home Chain That Terminated Nursing Assistant Who Complained About Wages
6 minute readJetBlue Airways Will Pay $2M to Settle DOT Charges of Chronically Delayed Flights
Trending Stories
- 1Restoring Trust in the Courts Starts in New York
- 2'Pull Back the Curtain': Ex-NFL Players Seek Discovery in Lawsuit Over League's Disability Plan
- 3Tensions Run High at Final Hearing Before Manhattan Congestion Pricing Takes Effect
- 4Improper Removal to Fed. Court Leads to $100K Bill for Blue Cross Blue Shield
- 5Michael Halpern, Beloved Key West Attorney, Dies at 72
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