Skip to main content

Can State Laws Combat Patent Trolls?

By


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.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Amazing, but True, Deportation Story of Carlos Marcello

By
Earlier this week, the University of Houston Law Center was fortunate to have as its guest Professor Daniel Kanstroom of Boston College of Law. An expert in immigration law, he is the Director of the International Human Rights Program, and he both founded and directs the Boston College Immigration and Asylum Clinic. Speaking as the guest of the Houston Journal of International Law’s annual Fall Lecture Series, Professor Kanstroom discussed issues raised in his new book, Aftermath: Deportation Law and the New American Diaspora . Professor Michael Olivas introduced Professor Kanstroom to the audience, and mentioned the fascinating tale of Carlos Marcello, which Professor Kanstroom wrote about in his chapter “The Long, Complex, and Futile Deportation Saga of Carlos Marcello,” in Immigration Stories , a collection of narratives about leading immigration law cases. My interest piqued, I read and was amazed by Kanstroom’s description of one of the most interesting figures in American le...
1 comment
Read more

Texas Subsequent History Table Ceases Publication

By
This week, Thomson Reuters notified subscribers that publication of the Texas Subsequent History Table will be discontinued and no further updates will be produced, due to “insufficient market interest.” Practitioners have been extracting writ (and since 1997, petition) history from the tables since their initial publication in 1917 as The Complete Texas Writs of Error Table . The tables, later published by West, have been used for nearly a century to determine how the Texas Supreme Court or Court of Criminal Appeals disposed of an appeal from an intermediate appellate court. The purpose of adding this notation to citations is to indicate the effect of the Texas Supreme Court’s action on the weight of authority of the Court of Appeals’ opinion.  For example, practitioners may prefer to use as authority a case that the Texas Supreme Court has determined is correct both in result and legal principles applied (petition refused), rather than one that simply presents no error that requ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Lessons for Today from the Genocide Against the Tutsi in Rwanda

By Anonymous
“Man’s inhumanity to man is not only perpetrated by the vitriolic actions of those who are bad. It is also perpetrated by the vitiating inaction of those who are good.” –Martin Luther King Jr.   Last week, I had the pleasure of attending  Professor Zachary D. Kaufman ’s presentation on  Lessons for Today from the Genocide Against the Tutsi in Rwanda  hosted by the  Johannesburg Holocaust & Geno cide Ce ntre . Among the many takeaways highlighted by Professor Kaufman and drawn from  Lessons from Rwanda: Post-Genocide Law and Policy   were ten simple yet profound lessons:   Lesson #1: Hate speech is dangerous.   To illustrate the role that hate speech played in the Rwandan genocide, Professor Kaufman discussed multiple forms of  propaganda , such as Kangura, Radio Rwanda, and RTLM “hate radio.”   He concludes that we must have limits, including with respect to social media, and further asserts that social media must do a better jo...
Post a Comment
Read more