Judges Want To Make Life Harder On Patent Trolls: Want Them To Actually Have To Explain What Infringement Happened
from the twiqbal dept
I'd missed this one, but Cory Doctorow over at BoingBoing points our attention to the fact that, last month, the Judicial Conference voted to make a little-noticed change in patent lawsuits that should serve to make life more difficult for patent trolls. The details here are more complex than necessary, but the short version is that, under current rules, to file a patent infringement case, the initial complaint can be almost entirely bare bones: basically naming the plaintiff, defendant, patent and saying there's infringement, but providing no real details on the infringement. That aids patent trolls, who often will file questionable lawsuits without even telling the defendant where the infringement occurs -- leading defendants to have to go into the case a bit blind, and making it more appealing to just settle.A key part of the patent reform proposal that everyone thought was going to happen earlier this year was to change those rules to require the patent holder to have to actually explain where the infringement occurred -- basically inching up the bar to filing a patent lawsuit. Then the trial lawyers came in and killed patent reform dead with a call to Senator Harry Reid. However, it looks like the courts may want to take this matter into their own hands. The Judicial Conference sets the rules by which the courts work under, and it appears that it's basically decided to implement this change in rules (bringing patent lawsuits more in line with most regular lawsuits) anyway, no matter what happens with Congress, though the Supreme Court needs to approve first. Given the way the Supreme Court has handled patent cases lately, it would be surprising if they had a problem with this particular change.
Slowly, but surely, it looks like the courts themselves are chipping away at the setup that makes patent trolling so profitable.
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: claims, judicial conference, patent reform, patent trolls, patents
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Hopefully the SC agrees and authorizes the (incredibly overdue) change.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If you look at some of the information used to file for the patent , there are a endless stream of applications where there is a bunch of supposedly technical gobbledygook that drones on and on without really specifically saying what said patent does.
Is this a great step. yes I believe so. The problem is that some courts are so over burdened that they just seem to rubber stamp anything that comes there way. Lets hope this helps.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
They file in hopes the company will just settle, they don't have to provide any details as to the merit of their claim to file.
If they are now required to show what is infringing and how they will be less likely to file bogus suits that can easily be dismissed thus reducing the trolling aspect of patent suits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OK, that's out of my system now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh - man! This is the end of the world. No more free ride for Mr. Entitlement IP holder. They actually have to prove something in a court of law where the defendant is represented and stuff. Oh boy, shit got real yo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Nope, but you DO have to at least state what your claim is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually, it was much, much more demanding, to a point where even meritorious suits might have difficulty getting past the pleading stage because discovery would be necessary to answer critical questions relevant to infringement.
One would like to think that a patentee can look at a competitive offering and immediately discern if infringement is taking place. Unfortunately, in many instances that is simply not at all possible. Product by process is one instance that quickly comes to mind. The practice of a method is yet another.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
2. About fucking time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The whole point of having statutory damages is (or should be) that it can be difficult to evaluate actual damages to your product. So to facilitate that we just have statutory damages to accommodate the potential actual damages while saving the very difficult to impossible costs of trying to evaluate the actual damages.
but if you're not selling a product related to the patent then how can someone else that's selling it cause any damages whatsoever to your product? They can't, you're not selling anything to infringe upon. So there should be no damages.
So in addition to pointing out which of the defendant's product(s), which aspect of that product are infringing and which patent(s), and which part of the patent(s), are being infringed upon the plaintiff should also point out which of the plaintiffs products (and which aspect of those products) is being infringed upon. If you're not selling a product that covers the relevant patent then there are no potential damages to sue for and so statutory damages, to account for potential actual damages, don't make sense since there are no potential actual damages.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
the only reason trolls exist is because they haven't been treated correctly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
more dissembling by Masnick
Often in patent infringement cases the patentee must first collect confidential information from the suspected infringer before they can conclude infringement is present. All you and these other large infringer puppets know about patents is...you don't have any.
infringers and their paid puppets definition of ‘patent troll’:
anyone who sues us for stealing their invention
Can you say dissemble? All this talk about trolls and so called ‘patent reform’ is just spin control by large infringers and their paid puppets to cover up their theft. If you tell a lie often enough and can dupe others to repeat that lie, eventually it is accepted as fact. As Mark Twain said, 'truth is not hard to kill, and (that) a lie well told is immortal'. Those who use the amorphous phrase 'patent troll' expose themselves as thieves, duped, or doped and perpetuate the lie.
http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=276448190& ;m=276545654&live=1
http://www.npr.org/2013/11/06/243022966/secret-persuasion-how-big-campaign-do nors-stay-anonymous
Property rights and jobs in America are now hanging from a frayed thread. These changes are killing our small and startup firms and the jobs they would have created. When government fails to uniformly and justly enforce property rights they promote unrest and insurrection. Some in Congress and the White House continue to follow the lead of their giant multinational campaign donors like lambs...pulling America along to the slaughter.
The patent system now teeters on the brink of lawlessness. Call it what you will...patent hoarder, patent troll, non-practicing entity, shell company, etc. It all means one thing: “we’re using your invention and we’re not going to stop or pay”. It’s a pure red herring by large invention thieves and their paid puppets to kill any inventor support system. Their goal is to legalize theft. The fact is, many of the large multinationals and their puppets who defame inventors in this way themselves make no products in the US or create any American jobs and it is their continued blatant theft which makes it impossible for the true creators to do so. To infringers the only patents that are legitimate are their own -if they have any. Meanwhile, the huge multinationals ship more and more US jobs overseas.
It’s about property rights. They should not only be for the rich and powerful -campaign contributors. America’s founders: Jefferson, Franklin, Madison and others felt so strongly about the rights of inventors that they recognized and incorporated inventors rights to their creations and discoveries into the Constitution.
From ‘Section 8 - Powers of Congress:
To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;’
They understood the trade off. Inventors are given a limited monopoly and in turn society gets the benefits of their inventions (telephone, computer, airplane, automobile, lighting, etc) into perpetuity and the jobs the commercialization of those inventions bring. For 200 years the patent system has not only fueled the US economy, but the world’s. If we weaken the patent system, we force inventors underground like Stradivarius (anyone know how to make a Stradivarius violin?) and in turn weaken our economy and job creation. Worse yet, we destroy the American dream -the ability to prosper from our ingenuity for the benefit of our families and communities. To kill or weaken the patent system is to kill all our futures. Show me a country with weak or ineffective property rights and I’ll show you a weak economy with high unemployment. If we cannot own the product of our minds or labors, what can we be said to truly own? Life and liberty are fundamentally tied to and in fact based on property rights. Our very lives are inseparably tied to our property.
Prior to the Supreme Court case eBay v Mercexchange, small entities had a viable chance at commercializing their inventions. If the defendant was found guilty, an injunction was most always issued. Then the inventor small entity could enjoy the exclusive use of his invention in commercializing it. Unfortunately, injunctions are often no longer available to small entity inventors because of the eBay decision so we have no fair chance to compete with much larger entities who are now free to use our inventions. Essentially, large infringers now have your gun and all the bullets. Worse yet, inability to commercialize means those same small entities will not be hiring new employees to roll out their products and services. And now those same parties who killed injunctions for small entities and thus blocked any fair chance at commercializing now complain that small entity inventors are not commercializing. They created the problem and now they want to blame small entities for it. What dissembling! If you don’t like this state of affairs (your unemployment is running out), tell your Congress member. Then maybe we can get some sense back into the patent system with injunctions fully enforceable on all infringers by all patentees, large and small.
Those wishing to help fight big business giveaways should contact us as below and join the fight as we are building a network of inventors and other stakeholders to lobby Congress to restore property rights for all patent owners -large and small.
For the truth about trolls and so-called patent reform, please see http://truereform.piausa.org/default.html#pt.
http://piausa.wordpress.com/
http://www.kentucky.com/2014/05/27/3260938/george-ward-patent-reform-cou ld.html?sp=/99/349/
http://www.hoover.org/publications/defining-ideas/article/142741
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: more cocksucking by Ronald J. Riley
*breathes*
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
What's funny is that aside from your usual copypasted junk, your only altered paragraph doesn't explain shit - except that you have to scour for information on whomever's the unlucky sap you plan on suing.
Owned, jackass!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: more dissembling by Masnick
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: more dissembling by Masnick
Simple, ask one of the members of the Stradivarius family to make you one.
try harder troll
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: more dissembling by Masnick
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: more dissembling by Masnick
There is an age-old term for what you described, and it isn't "patent infringement lawsuit". It's "fishing expedition". If you don't have the cards, all you're doing is bluffing; and in the court of law that isn't an accepted part of the game.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
But I'm still not interested in that prime Floridian development "land".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
2) misinterpretations - examples to be provided, never.
3) logical non sequiturs - examples to be provided, never.
Are you implying that plaintiff does not need to explain anything to the court?
Why yes, of course the court should simply roll over and do what it's told. What is so difficult about that?
lol
[ link to this | view in chronology ]