Skip to main content

Can State Laws Combat Patent Trolls?



As discussed in my last post, in the 2015 legislative session Texas may consider using state consumer protection law to combat patent trolls. Attorneys General of Vermont and Nebraska, for example, have separately taken action against patent trolls by suing under state consumer protection laws. More recently, Vermont enacted legislation that is specifically aimed to combat patent trolls. But do states have the power to regulate patents at all? And is that the best avenue for relief from patent trolls? Let’s look at some different perspectives:

Federal Patent Law & States

Due to federal law, states cannot enact their own patent laws. Federal courts have original jurisdiction over civil actions relating to patent and patent infringement (28 U.S.C.A. § 1338). The Vermont law states that a person “shall not make a bad faith assertion of patent infringement.” (Vt. Stat. Ann. tit. 9, § 4197 (West 2013).  If a patent asserter (i.e. patent troll) is accused of asserting its patents in bad faith, the judge may award equitable relief (including injunctions) and damages. Critics claim that making judgments about patents may make conflict impermissibly with federal patent law.  

Proponents of the state legislation instead say that the law does not attack the validity of the patent itself, but the determination of “bad faith” hinges on the behavior of the patent asserter. A few of the  factors used to determine bad faith under the Vermont law include: demand letters failing to specify the patent number; lack factual allegations about the specific way in which the entity is infringing on the patent; and demand for a license fee in an unreasonably short amount of time. (Vt. Stat. Ann. Tit. 9, §4197 (West 2013). Similarly, the statute also contains factors that can be evidence of no bad faith on the patent asserter, such as when the asserter is the inventor or an institution of higher education. By relying on these factors, and not the underlying patent itself, many believe this will save the law from preemption.   

 A Patchwork of State Laws 

Critics of state laws to combat patent troll activities have also suggested that a patchwork of different laws from all the states would lead to confusion and inefficiency, and a single federal law would be more appropriate. Some fear that this would make it significantly more expensive for intellectual property owners to enforce their rights. Finally, they suggest that determining which state’s law should apply will be unreasonably difficult, as these activities could very well cross state lines. 

Advocates of the state laws may agree, and see the additional costs as a deterrent to patent trolls.  Patent trolls may send thousands of demand letters all across the country, with the understanding that at least some of the recipients will settle immediately to avoid litigation. If these letters may now spur action from state attorneys general, who can effectively fight back with attacks of their own under state law, patent trolling may cease to be lucrative.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Law School Exams: A Guide to Better Grades

It’s that time of year again. Law students across the country are poring over their class notes and supplements, putting the finishing touches on their outlines, and fueling their all-night study sessions with a combination of high-carb snacks and Java Monsters. This can mean only one thing: exam time is approaching.

If you’re looking for a brief but effective guide to improving your exam performance, the O’Quinn Law Library has the book for you. Alex Schimel’s Law School Exams: A Guide to Better Grades, now in its second edition, provides a clear and concise strategy for mastering the issue-spotting exams that determine the majority of your grade in most law school classes. Schimel finished second in his class at the University Of Miami School Of Law, where he taught a wildly popular exam workshop in his 2L and 3L years, and later returned to become Associate Director of the Academic Achievement Program. The first edition of his book was written shortly after he finished law school, …

Citing to Vernon's Texas Codes Annotated: Finding Accurate Publication Dates (without touching a book)

When citing to a current statute, both the Bluebook (rule 12.3.2) and Greenbook (rule 10.1.1) require a  practitioner to provide the publication date of the bound volume in which the cited code section appears. For example, let's cite to the codified statute section that prohibits Texans from hunting or selling bats, living or dead. Note, however, you may remove or hunt a bat that is inside or on a building occupied by people. The statute is silent as to Batman, who for his own safety, best stay in Gotham City.
This section of the Texas Parks and Wildlife code is 63.101. "Protection of Bats." After checking the pocket part and finding no updates in the supplement, my citation will be:
Tex. Parks & Wild. Code Ann. § 63.101 (West ___ ). When I look at the statute in my bound volume of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Code, I can clearly see that the volume's publication date is 2002. But, when I find the same citation on Westlaw or LexisNexis, all I can see is that the …