Patent troll bill moves through Wisconsin
In short, the patent troll usually ends up forcing the smaller company to license its patents rather than empty its pockets to fight for its own IP rights in court. Wisconsins Senate Bill 498 contains provisions that attempt to curb this activity.
March 19, 2014 at 05:16 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
Legislation regarding patent litigation has been a focus for federal and state lawmakers over the last year as many in Washington consider the importance of new technologies and the efforts required to preserve the ownership of intellectual property. As technology itself has swiftly evolved over the last decade — with mobile at the forefront of the growing tech scene — companies race to patent IP. But the evolution of the patent troll has not gone unnoticed, to say the least, as a result of the deeply competitive nature of technology IP patents. New legislation making its way through Wisconsin right now aims to address the power of the patent troll.
Patent trolls are considered companies that hold patents and actively — if not needlessly — pursue in court other companies that are designing or using similar technologies. The traditional model is one of a large corporation going after smaller startups that often do not have the kind of financial support to undergo massive amounts of litigation. Often, patent trolls do not use the technology itself, but instead simply own the patents and make money off the licensing fees. In short, the patent troll usually ends up forcing the smaller company to license its patents rather than empty its pockets to fight for its own IP rights in court. Wisconsin's Senate Bill 498 contains provisions that attempt to curb this activity.
The bill has cleared the Senate, and is being sent to the state Assembly, which will approve it before the Governor would sign it. It mainly enforces written communications — otherwise known as “demand letters” — with regards to asserting patent rights, requiring specifications and the basis for theory of each patent claim being asserted.
Legal Newsline describes the increased strictness on patent litigation that the bill covers: “It would authorize the attorney general to initiate a court action for an injunction of a violation of the bill's requirements, and in such an action, the bill would authorize the court to make any necessary orders to restore to any person any pecuniary loss the person may have suffered as a result of the violation…SB 498 also would allow the attorney general to seek a forfeiture to the state of up to $50,000 for each violation of the bill's requirements.”
Among other provisions, these new rules — if enacted — are aimed at dissuading patent trolls from haphazardly bringing patent cases to court simply to extract licensing fees or to bleed smaller companies dry.
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 AllOpenAI Hires First Compliance Chief, Snagging Uber's Scott Schools
Meta Hit With Class Action for Allegedly Using Pirated Books to Train AI Models
Trending Stories
- 1Data Breach Lawsuit Against Byte Federal Among 1,500 Targeting Companies in 2024
- 2Counterfeiters Ride Surge in Tabletop Games’ Popularity, Challenging IP Owners to Keep Up
- 3Health Care Data Breach Class Actions Saw December Surge in NY Courts
- 4Florida Supreme Court Disbars 3, Suspends 11, Reprimands 1 in Final Disciplinary Order of 2024
- 5Chief Justice Roberts Ends Year With Defense Against 'Illegitimate' Attacks on Judiciary
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