Examining the Multi-Faceted Attack on Patent Assertion Entities
Janet M. MacLeod and J. Eric Sumner of Fox Rothschild provide an overview of recent attacks against patent trolls, including executive and administrative actions and judicial decisions, which may have collectively succeeded in accomplishing at least some of the goals of failed legislative reform.
January 19, 2015 at 08:36 PM
13 minute read
Although perhaps not ugly green creatures lurking under bridges, “patent trolls” have nevertheless haunted companies and patent practitioners for two decades.
Using extortive practices and preying on the inability of small companies to afford patent litigation, patent trolls have perfected the art of early settlement, requiring companies to pay tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars to avoid more significant litigation expenses. Such a practice can be quite lucrative when it involves hundreds of potential defendants. It has certainly not gone unnoticed. Both President Barack Obama and Congressional leaders called for patent reform in 2014 to curtail these practices. A recent patent reform bill focused on addressing abusive patent litigation tactics passed in the House but died in the Senate after failed negotiations. But patent trolls have not escaped unscathed. Rather, they have recently suffered a multi-faceted attack including executive and administrative actions and judicial decisions, which may have collectively succeeded in accomplishing at least some of the goals of the failed legislative reform. The following provides an overview of such attacks.
A patent assertion entity (PAE), or non-practicing entity, is a company or individual that owns and asserts patent rights but does not manufacture the products or provide the services covered by the patents. These entities are not all bad actors, but rather include research institutions, universities, and individual inventors who license or otherwise enforce their patents. The term “patent trolls” refers to non-practicing entities that acquire and assert patents of questionable validity in order to extort licensing revenue, or otherwise engage in abusive litigation tactics. Because the cost and risk of defending a patent infringement lawsuit are high, a target of a troll may choose to settle for tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars even if the suit is without merit.
This content has been archived.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 AllTesting The Limits of “I Agree”: Court of Appeals Examines Clickwrap Arbitration Agreements
13 minute readChange on the Horizon?: 2025 Begins With Numerous Patent Bills Pending
8 minute readIP at the Frontier of AI: Navigating the New Landscape
Trending Stories
- 1Exits Leave American Airlines, SiriusXM, Spotify Searching for New Legal Chiefs
- 2Etsy App Infringes on Storage, Retrieval Patents, New Suit Claims
- 3The Secret Prior Art Problem Rears Its Ugly Head
- 4Four Things to Know About Florida’s New Law to Protect Minors Online
- 5US Supreme Court Considers Further Narrowing of Federal Fraud Statutes
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