Should Those Sued In Bogus Patent Infringement Cases Be Able To Recover Legal Fees?

from the this-may-be-important dept

Mon, Jul 12th 2010 11:01am — Mike Masnick

There's a potentially important legal battle going on following a highly questionable patent infringement claim made against Netflix and Blockbuster. The whole case seems pretty ridiculous. Basically a patent attorney had a rather basic idea on how to improve Netflix with a minor feature that pretty much anyone could have come up with, got a patent on it, formed a "company" whose only purpose was to sue... and then sued. The court quickly dismissed the lawsuit, which is now being appealed. However, Netflix is appealing itself on a separate issue: saying that the current system makes it much harder for those being sued to get attorney's fees, even in such ridiculous lawsuits.

Groklaw goes into more detail about the issues in the lawsuit, pointing out that those suing for patent infringement can get attorneys' fees on cases where willful infringement is found, but those who are sued (even for bogus patents) can only recover attorneys' fees in "exceptional cases." Netflix is claiming that this creates an unfair imbalance. Lots of companies seem to be agreeing with Netflix, as Amazon, Facebook, Microsoft, Oracle, Toyota, and others have all filed amicus briefs siding with Netflix.

This is, actually, quite a big deal. An awful lot of totally bogus patent infringement lawsuits settle just because it's cheaper to pay up than to fight it in court. Even if you "win," the legal fees may outweigh what you could have settled for earlier on. And this perpetuates the problematic system. First, many patent system defenders take those "settlements" as proof that there was infringement and that the patents are valid. Second, it just gives those companies more reasons (and money) to keep suing others. It's a huge problem for many companies today -- and if the court reasonably lowered the barrier on granting attorneys' fees against totally ridiculous patent claims, it might make some of those questionable patent holders think twice before suing.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: attorneys' fees, patents
Companies: netflix

47 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

barney rumble, 12 Jul 2010 @ 11:19am

um
yes and then some for harassment like a double penalty
YOU Lose you pay double

SO YOU BETTER BE SURE your suit is tight
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jon Renaut (profile), 12 Jul 2010 @ 11:26am

Misplaced liability
If he was granted the patent, doesn't he have every legal right to sue? Sure, it makes him a schmuck, but shouldn't the liability be placed on the patent office for issuing the patent on something that was obvious?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- James, 12 Jul 2010 @ 11:33am
  
  Re: Misplaced liability
  But the key thing is that it should decrease the number of false settlements (where the patent should be ruled invalid but it is cheaper to settle than to fight). Which should have two effects: fewer bogus or frivolous lawsuits, and more patents being ruled as being invalid by the courts.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jon Renaut (profile), 12 Jul 2010 @ 11:38am
    
    Re: Re: Misplaced liability
    I agree that it may end up with a positive outcome, but I don't think the ends justify the means here.
    
    The guy may not even have known how obvious it was. He wasn't a programmer or anyone involved in Netflix's innovation process. He was a patent attorney.
    
    But what this does is place liability on a guy who has done nothing but be a jerk. He followed the law. He's under no obligation to promote the progress and the general well-being of society. The error was by the patent office, so that is where we should place the blame.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Michal, 12 Jul 2010 @ 11:58am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Misplaced liability
      I see your point. But so does the parent...Trying a case always has consequences, no matter the outcome.
      
      How different is this from a liability case, say if you crash your car into another's and it is your fault, you are liable for damages. If you sue other person and loose, you have caused unnecessary expense on the defendant so you should compensate? Perhaps these expenses should be somewhat capped or there would be an "lawyers arms race" (runaway costs).
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Jon Renaut (profile), 12 Jul 2010 @ 12:41pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Misplaced liability
        If I know that I am liable and sue you anyway, then you should get legal fees reimbursed. If I am suing to determine liability, then you don't get anything (aside from whatever you are due as the injured party).
        
        In this case, as far as I can tell, he had a patent that Netflix was violating. He had every right to sue, and Netflix doesn't deserve anything. But, like I said in another comment, I didn't click through beyond the Techdirt article, so there might be more to it that I'm not taking into account.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Common Sense, 12 Jul 2010 @ 1:49pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Misplaced liability
      He may not have broken the law, but that doesn't mean he has followed it. If all he's doing is being a jerk, or if he doesn't actually know how obvious something he's trying to patent is, then he's abusing the system, which should be against the law. The system isn't there for him to be able to set up bogus companies and sue people, just because it's legal. The ends absolutely justify the means, and people SHOULD be thinking twice before they patent something.
      
      Patents should not be a "get rich quick" scheme.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2010 @ 2:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Misplaced liability
        ...and what precisely are the facts upon which you rely in support of your comments regarding this specific case?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Matthew Stinar (profile), 22 Jul 2010 @ 11:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Misplaced liability
        If they were thinking clearly enough, they probably wouldn't be patenting in the first place. Whether or not patents made any sense in the past, it is becoming increasingly clear that they are merely a drain on innovation in this modern era.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Matthew Stinar (profile), 12 Jul 2010 @ 12:16pm
  
  Re: Misplaced liability
  No, he doesn't have the right to sue people who aren't infringing his patent. If I read correctly, the point here is to fight the lawsuits that should never have been filed and leave alone those who do have the right to sue.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jon Renaut (profile), 12 Jul 2010 @ 12:26pm
    
    Re: Re: Misplaced liability
    That's not how I read the post, though I admit I did not click through to read the details.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Matthew Stinar (profile), 22 Jul 2010 @ 11:26pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Misplaced liability
      FWIW, I was referring to the article being linked, not the Techdirt commentary on the article.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2010 @ 11:32am

So maybe hold the guy who sued responsible and the pto. That way both are discouraged from bogus patents. Be the worker would try a lot harder to find prior art if he was liable for it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2010 @ 6:07pm
  
  Re:
  Perhaps the court can hold the patent holder responsible and the patent holder can then turn around and sue the USPTO and hold them responsible for damages.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Griffon, 12 Jul 2010 @ 11:36am

with prejiduce
It's been my thought for years that this is a problem. It seems to me that it should be the standard that any case that get's set down hard, and particular those that are a corporation or business attacking individuals (infringement without profit, slap suites etc), should always be settled with prejudice so defenders against BS attacks don't have o bankrupt themselves to to be protected or just to stand up for their rights. Right now in any of of company vs person or even corporation vs. small business the incentive is to give in or settle even on frivolous suites because the expense of defending is insane.
If the standard was that you as the defendant would not have to take on that burden of cost of if you win there would be a lot more people willing to stand up, and I would imagine a lot more lawyers willing to stand up with them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tom Utley, 12 Jul 2010 @ 11:50am

Loser Pays
We need loser pays ASAP. Lawsuits are killing us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tom Utley, 12 Jul 2010 @ 11:50am

Loser Pays
We need loser pays ASAP. Lawsuits are killing us.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
angry dude, 12 Jul 2010 @ 11:58am

Welcome to America
Patent lawsuits are just a form of civil lawsuit
There is Rule 11 sanction which can be applied to plaintiffs but in practice it is rarely used
Why ? Simple
America should stay a (civil) lawsuit happy country
the more (civil)lawsuits, the better

So just shut up
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- dan, 12 Jul 2010 @ 12:13pm
  
  where do you live
  I want to sue you for being an idiot who is wasting bandwidth with your stupid opinions. Your wasted bandwidth has driven up the price of my connections and I wish to recoup my losses.
  
  What goes around idiot, comes around.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - angry dude, 12 Jul 2010 @ 1:25pm
    
    Re: where do you live
    In a nice house you can't afford, punk
    
    I also have Verizon Fios with a LOT of bandwidth and even more bandwidth at work
    
    Now drop dead, techdirt retard
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Pre-order now and save $1.59, 12 Jul 2010 @ 5:17pm
      
      Re: Re: where do you live
      How to win friends and influence people,
      by Angry Dude
      
      Journey with Angry Dude through his demented rants and weak attempts at communication. Experience the highs and lows of his pathetic life spent tilting at windmills. You will be astonished at how tolerant others are to his condition. Available in paperback and e-book
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2010 @ 12:05pm

"Bogus" seems to be a word enjoying popular and regular use on this site anytime the authors of articles here jump on the "It is Obvious" bandwagon.

Apparently this case was decided on the basis of non-infringement, and not that the patent was deemed invalid.

The relevant prior art seems clear and not of the type beyond the technical expertise of the USPTO examiners, so it is a bit premature to bandy the word "bogus" around to suggest that the issued patent covers a manifestly obvious invention.

As I look at the lineup of those coming to the aid of Netflix, it could not be more clear that the end goal of this appeal concerning damages is much less one of balancing the opportunity for receiving an award of attorney fees, and much more a rather stealthy attack on "software" patents per se.

Before forming opinions cast in stone, it would be nice to have a copy of the patentee's appeal brief in hand to understand his legal arguments pertaining to the finding of non-infringement. After all, understanding both sides of a case is much better than being presented with only one side.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2010 @ 12:45pm
  
  Re:
  And your opinions are cast of what, clay? You certainly seem to have some strong opinions yourself.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2010 @ 12:50pm
    
    Re: Re:
    My only "opinion" pertains to the likelihood that this case is less about recovery of attorney fees and more about an antipathy towards so-called "software patents".
    
    As for another view of this matter, one that I noted was absent, is the following blog post by the patentee. Mindful that it represents his perceptions, it is nonetheless quite informative:
    
    http://nicdagreek.typepad.com/my_weblog/2010/07/setting-the-record-straight.html
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
AJ, 12 Jul 2010 @ 12:13pm

It only makes since...
IF someone accuses me, and I have to spend money in defending myself, it would only make since that if found innocent,my accuser would pay my legal costs. Othewise, isn't it just extortion?

I think it should be the same in a criminal case as well. If someone really was innocent, and they had good proof that this was the case, they could probably get a really good laywer to defend them because the laywer was sure to get paid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Red Monkey (profile), 12 Jul 2010 @ 1:10pm
  
  Re: It only makes since...
  There is a grand jury system that stands between an accused and an overzealous prosecutor. Maybe there should be a similar system in place for patent infringement?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
diceless, 12 Jul 2010 @ 12:31pm

The problem of shell companies
It sounds like a great idea to make those that bring bogus patent cases to pay if they lose. But the biggest weakness is the fact that most already use shell companies that have no assests except for those needed to take the case to court. If they lose, they don't lose anything since all they need to do is declair bankrupty and then walk away. The patent is usually nearly worthless and the cash the company has is usually held by another entity. So what awards is there left to be claimed?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2010 @ 6:21pm
  
  Re: The problem of shell companies
  Perhaps to invalidate all the patents that the shell company has under the pretext that the company is abusive. Or maybe they should go after the parent company.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 12 Jul 2010 @ 12:57pm

Innocent people/entities should not have to pay to prove that they are innocent.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Red Monkey (profile), 12 Jul 2010 @ 1:07pm

some but not all claims are invalid or not infringed
What do you do with a "loser-pays" system in which some asserted claims are infringed and some aren't? Does loser lose attorneys fees if even one claim hits its mark? Would it be some sort of ratio of hits to misses?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
JNG (profile), 12 Jul 2010 @ 1:31pm

Netflix nonsense
I am the inventor and the person that Netflix tries to malign in their papers. If you want to see the whole story and then make your own judgement, please see my post at:

http://nicdagreek.typepad.com/my_weblog/2010/07/setting-the-record-straight.html

After you read what happened I think you have a different opinion about the merits of their request here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jay (profile), 12 Jul 2010 @ 5:40pm
  
  Re: Netflix nonsense
  "Then Netflix doesn’t bother either to explain that the “exceptional” requirement in the trademark cases it cites has usually been interpreted to require a finding of culpable conduct on the part of the losing party, “…such as bad faith, fraud, malice, or knowing infringement, before a case qualifies as `exceptional."
  
  Uhm... Not to be a huge drag but if you set up a company to make a patent, copyright, trademark, etc, for only the chance to sue, isn't that bad faith?
  
  After the first few paragraphs, your tone seems rather... arrogant. It's as if you are asking us the readers to be persuaded by you in saying you're correct in your assessments merely by law.
  
  Also, from the looks you could have solved this amicably by allowing Netflix to use the patents in 2006:
  
  "The real facts are that in early 2006, before I had any patent whatsoever, a friend of mine familiar with my then dozen plus pending applications on the subject indicated that he knew one of the original founders at Netflix, and that this person might be interested in buying the whole portfolio. After some initial exchanges, we entered into a formal evaluation agreement with Netflix to have further discussions about their purchase of the portfolio. "
  
  But you turned them down:
  
  "Netflix tried to BUY the patent applications, and they failed. I turned down their last proffered terms, not the other way around. This little distortion of the facts is introduced again by Netflix to suggest that I somehow had a vendetta against them. What is apparent now, in hindsight is that my apprehension was probably justified. "
  
  Now, there's three sides to every tale. Your side, my side, and the truth. From your own tone in the weblog, I'm not likely to believe that you simply turned down Netflix (2006 version before they took off) without some kind of compensation. I can believe that negotiations on the patent failed.
  
  Regardless, it seems that you're wanting to fight them for this small patent and you're not looking to compete in some new way. I side more with Netflix at this current moment than I do with you with all respect.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Hephaestus (profile), 13 Jul 2010 @ 6:59am
  
  Re: Netflix nonsense
  After reading both side of this. I am leaning towards netflix side.
  
  Anyone have a list of this guys patents?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
NAMELESS ONE, 12 Jul 2010 @ 1:32pm

@2
sure he can sue but if he/she knows its a flimsy patent they
A) they might not buy into them types a patents
B) and the number of lawsuits regarding stupid flimsly patents would drop massively.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DanVan (profile), 12 Jul 2010 @ 1:34pm

To this day I wish we allowed most winners to get their lawsuits paid for by the losing side

This would stop MANY people from filing ridiculous suits
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Willton, 13 Jul 2010 @ 9:10am
  
  Re:
  To this day I wish we allowed most winners to get their lawsuits paid for by the losing side
  
  This would stop MANY people from filing ridiculous suits
  
  It would also stop many people from filing legitimate lawsuits.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 13 Jul 2010 @ 9:37am
    
    Re: Re:
    ...which is one of several reasons why Congress specifically rejected the UK aproach.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
xs (profile), 12 Jul 2010 @ 2:33pm

Absolutely No way in HELL should the loser pay system be allowed to exist in this area. Loser Pay system will simply make it more convenient for big corporations and deep pocketed entities to violate patents and not suffers the consequence. Because the patent holder will be afraid of the cost of litigation.

If the loser pay system exist and I was CEO of a big corporation, then I would feel absolutely no need to honor any patent from ordinary individual and small companies at all. If they threaten to sue, I'll just show them my team of lawyers, their hourly rate, and the length of time I could drag out the process, so the final lawyers bill will bankrupt them 10 times over. Even if they got a rock solid case, my low ball offer for settlement will stand a much better chance of been accepted under this threat.

NO way. The currently system is flawed, but it's there for a purpose.

A better system would be to make US patent office, and the clerk who approved the patent co-defendants in all patent lawsuits. This way, they won't be so keen on approving frivolus patents that invite law suits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- xs (profile), 12 Jul 2010 @ 2:39pm
  
  Re:
  Another fairer system would be to make whoever is richer loser pay. Compare the asset of the two, if one's asset is a certain multiple over the other, then this richer party will pay everyone's legal fee if it looses.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- nasch (profile), 12 Jul 2010 @ 4:36pm
  
  Re:
  If they threaten to sue, I'll just show them my team of lawyers, their hourly rate, and the length of time I could drag out the process, so the final lawyers bill will bankrupt them 10 times over.
  
  How is that different from the current situation? I mean, now the little guy's legal fees will bankrupt him if he loses, and maybe also if he wins. Under loser pays, they'd bankrupt him and then some if he loses, and he'd pay nothing if he wins. Seems like a better outcome to me.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - xs (profile), 13 Jul 2010 @ 7:00am
    
    Re: Re:
    Under current system, the amount of legal fee I have to pay is determined by myself. If I can't pay that much, I hire a cheaper lawyer, use up less billable hours, or even stop the whole thing if I have to. The big company can feel free to spend as much as they want to, but it doesn't cost me any extra. The factors in the risk-reward calculation is entirely controlled by myself. Under loser pay system, how much the other side can afford to spend becomes the deciding factor that needs to be considered, instead of the odd of winning the case.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Craig (profile), 12 Jul 2010 @ 5:06pm

It's different here in Canada...
Canadians are about as sue-happy (crazy) as Americans in principle, but we DO have protection against lawsuits causing the defendant to go broke.
If you want to sue someone, you must have a real, defensible idea that you could/should win the case. If you don't, the judge can assess legal and court costs against the plaintiff.
I doubt that it's a perfect solution, but it's still something. That way Jane Public won't have to settle only because she knows the lawsuit would wipe her out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Big_Mike (profile), 13 Jul 2010 @ 5:45am

I didn't read any other comments but here is the problem with making the loser pay legal fees. I don't have a lot of money so I use a very inexpensive lawyer to fight my battles. On the other hand Netfix can afford to pay top end lawyers. Lets say I have a legitimate case, I could be intimidated by the price of their lawyers. "Yes you have a good case but if you lose you will have to pay 10 times what you paid me to there lawyers and you still have to pay me." Big business tramples on the little guy. Now, If the lawyers have to pay and not the client, the Hell ya! Then we lose the ambulance chasers and lawyers only take cases they think they can win... that would be awesome!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Willton, 13 Jul 2010 @ 11:18am
  
  Re:
  Now, If the lawyers have to pay and not the client, the Hell ya! Then we lose the ambulance chasers and lawyers only take cases they think they can win... that would be awesome!
  
  If that were the system, no one would want to be a lawyer. If you wanted to bring a case against someone, you'd have to do so pro se (i.e., representing yourself), as no lawyer would want the potential liability of paying someone else's legal costs, even if the case is legitimate.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - nasch (profile), 13 Jul 2010 @ 11:33am
    
    Re: Re:
    If that were the system, no one would want to be a lawyer.
    
    So... killing two birds with one stone? ;-)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Willton, 13 Jul 2010 @ 11:50am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      So... killing two birds with one stone? ;-)
      
      Funny guy. I hope you enjoy the prospect of representing yourself in court.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 13 Jul 2010 @ 1:27pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        nasch appears to have been injecting humor, so I would not take the comment seriously.
        
        But, you do raise a point overlooked by many. People will always hate lawyers until they need one, and even then fully half using the services of a lawyer for litigation will hate lawyers even more.
        
        Imagine how a pro se litigant feels if he/she loses. I can imagine few things more terrible than hating oneself.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]