Gamasutra: The Art & Business of Making Gamesspacer
Breaking News: A Horde of Patent Troll Killers Go to Washington!
Printer-Friendly VersionPrinter-Friendly Version
arrowPress Releases
April 17, 2014
PR Newswire
View All
View All     Submit Event





If you enjoy reading this site, you might also want to check out these UBM TechWeb sites:


 
Breaking News: A Horde of Patent Troll Killers Go to Washington!
by Jonathan Sparks on 12/13/13 03:24:00 pm   Featured Blogs

The following blog post, unless otherwise noted, was written by a member of Gamasutra’s community.
The thoughts and opinions expressed are those of the writer and not Gamasutra or its parent company.

 

Washington

I think it’s pretty much universally accepted, at this point, that some type of Patent reform has to happen, but exactly what form the changes will take is still undetermined. As written in my previous blog, “To Patent or Not to Patent,” Patents are one of the biggest issues in the tech industry today, and for once, Washington is listening. Bits and pieces of Patent Reform legislation are making their way through Congress. A bill meant to lower the costs of patent litigation, called the Innovation Act, was recently passed by a landslide in the House (325 to 91). Apparently the White House is also supporting the measure, and the Senate has patent reform high on their to-do-list. Hopefully, these measures will help enough to get the price of patents down so that startup tech companies can afford to take advantage of patent protections again.

What is Congress Currently Proposing?

Rather than take big steps—such as putting an arbitrary cap on litigation costs for defendants—Congress has instead chosen to create smaller procedural hurdles for patent troll companies. The goal is to protect people that have actual patents they are trying to use. Listed in more depth here, these protections include:

1. A heightened specificity requirement for anyone to bring patent lawsuits. Currently, trolls can easily start lawsuits against any company that may potentially be infringing on the patents they own. This protection would make it harder for them, by requiring that they actually explain howtheir patent is being infringed, and which particular part of their invention is effected. In plain English, it is meant to stop trolls from filing hundreds of lawsuits overnight against anyone and everyone that could potentially be infringing on a patent they own. After the bill is passed, trolls would have to take a great deal more time with each lawsuit before filing.

2. Lowering costs by delaying Discovery. Defendants (the people that are supposedly infringing on the troll’s patents) usually have to pay an enormous amount in litigation expenses, easily millions, just to get through the “Discovery” phase of litigation. By delaying Discovery, the Innovation Act allows judges to get some of the legal issues in the claim sorted out before anyone drops their nest-egg on frivolous discovery costs.

3. To avoid “shell company” trolls, the Innovation Act requires that someone with an actual financial interest in the patent be named in the litigation. Effectively, this means that people bringing the lawsuits have to have an actual interest in seeing their patent litigated. It also makes it so that the trolls can’t just create a company (with limited liability, see article here), and then sue a bunch of people, only to lose and claim limited liability—throw their hands up and say “I didn’t do it, my [shell] company did!”

4. The “Winner Takes All” Option. As some of you may know, American courts initially used British cases as a template for the budding US legal system. However, there was a fundamental change; America decided to avoid the British “Winner Takes All” policy in courts. In the UK, if I sue someone, and win, I get the winning value of the case and my attorney’s fees paid back to me. In fact, all of my expenses are reimbursed by the losing party. However, if I were to win the case in the US, all of my litigation costs would not get reimbursed, only the amount awarded by the judge or jury.  So even though I proved that I was injured, I’m still out of (potentially) sizeable attorney expenses in a US court.

Thankfully, the new Innovation Act is considering switching this, but only in favor of defendants. Basically, the Act makes it so that parties that bring patent lawsuits and lose (often trolls) will have to pay the defendant’s litigation expenses, so that the winning defendant isn’t out any money. (More on this here)

But Wait! There’s More! The plaintiffs who brought the lawsuit and lost the case could formerly point to their underfunded “shell company” and say to the judge: “we don’t have any money to pay the defendant’s litigation expenses!” Thankfully, the Act has a clause to cover this loophole by allowing the judge to order any party with a “financial interest in the litigation” (probably the one named, see section 3 above) to pay the expenses.

A Short Tangent on Why Congress May Not End up Saving US

Congress answers to voters. If they don’t get voted back in for another term, it doesn’t matter how well they ran the country or how hard they worked on getting the right legislation drafted and passed.

It should be common knowledge at this point that voters are easily swayed by heavily funded campaigns, funding that comes from large businesses who probably have a treasure trove of patents they’d like to protect (see article here).

Originally, the Innovation Act set out to remove overly-broad patents altogether with a quick and easy system, but companies such as Microsoft and IBM, with treasure troves of patent portfolios, pushed back and stripped the bill of its teeth. Senator Schumer (D-NY) is expected to push for re-instatement of this language once it gets to the Senate, but we can’t be sure. Plus, pushing this issue could bring the conflict between Microsoft and IBM versus Google and most other tech companies to the forefront.

Another Interesting Tid Bit

Recently, the head of Google’s patent litigation section, Michele Lee, was named the deputy director of the United States Patent Office! While she said that her time at Google will not influence her role as deputy director, I’m sure her history will have some influence (hopefully a lot) on what the USPTO does with the next few year(s).

Our Next Steps

If you are a small company that has a bunch of patents that you aren’t using (and don’t plan to), you may want to sell your patents now. The looming reform could easily squash your large investments in patents by making patents less broadly interpreted and/or making litigation less costly for plaintiffs suing for infringement of patents that they own. (Author’s Note: If anyone’s interested in further exploring how the Innovation Act could decrease the value of patents overall, please let me know in the comments and I’ll address this in future blogs).

If you are a small company that did not go the patent route, any attempt by Congress to quell the horde of patent trolls is great for you because it aims to decrease money you would have to pay defending a troll’s patent lawsuit.

If you are a troll company that simply buys patents from others in an attempt to sue ambitious startup businesses, well buddy—read #%$*%&^%#*—, you’re on your own!!!

 

Jonathan Sparks is the executive attorney at Sparks Law Practice, where he helps out startup and tech companies with business law issues, general counsel and registered agent services.

Are there any blog topics you’d like to see?  Any legal questions you’d like answered?  Please feel free to leave them in the comments section or shoot me an email.  I’d be happy to help out.

- Jonathan Sparks, Esq.
www.SavePointLaw.com
http://www.SparksLawPractice.com

Notice: This website consists of attorney advertising and opinions and does not establish any attorney-client relationship. Attorney-client relationships are only formed upon signing an engagement agreement. Sparks Law Practice cannot guarantee results; past results do not guarantee future results.


Related Jobs

Crytek
Crytek — Shanghai, China
[04.17.14]

Mobile Programmer
Turbine Inc.
Turbine Inc. — Needham, Massachusetts, United States
[04.16.14]

Director, Analytics Platform Development
2K
2K — Novato, California, United States
[04.16.14]

Web Producer
Linden Lab
Linden Lab — San Francisco, California, United States
[04.16.14]

Sr. Front-end Web Developer






Comments


Zachary Strebeck
profile image
Great post! Thanks for the excellent summary.

David Collier-Brown
profile image
The British system of "costs against" can be unintentionally punitive in cases where you have two honest litigants, not a predator and their prey.

To a degree in Britain, and to a great degree in Canada, the courts decide if the losing party must pay the winning party's court costs (billable lawyer-hours). The judge may impose costs, or a winning party may ask the court for "costs against", especially in predator-prey relationships.

[User Banned]
profile image
This user violated Gamasutra’s Comment Guidelines and has been banned.

Jeferson Soler
profile image
@ Andrew Webber - Why do you even bother to come to any article about politics at Gamasutra if you are just going to waste time and use this as an opportunity to post an unconstructive comment within the article? For that matter, why does Gamasutra even let you continue to post any message on the website as you tend to be no better than a troll? About the Congress, the Congress hasn't done anything meaningful to help with job creation among other important tasks and it even went as far as cause the government shutdown. Technically speaking and about the shutdown, it was caused more by the Tea Party, who hijacked what was once the party of Lincoln, T. Roosevelt and Eisenhower, and even Boehner (assuming that he's serious and legit about this) seems to have grown tired of the Tea Party and of the groups that support them, but that still doesn't change that the Congress was responsible for the government shutdown. As for the matter of patent trolls, even the White House will be on board with passing a measure to deal with them. The most common victims of patent trolls tend to be corporations, which may be part of the reason why a good number of politicians (Republicans and Democrats) from Congress and Senate are on board with passing a measure against patent trolls, but having said that, there are some corporations that are good and hard-working corporations that do get screwed over by opportunists/patent trolls and its not fair that those corporations have to go through legal issues over claims from patent trolls. That's why measures have to be passed to protect corporations, small businesses and little people from patent trolls that try to screw them over just to win money through court ruling.

John Trauger
profile image
We could have a nice OT politics debate here, couldn't we?

nah.

I disagree with Mr. Soler at some places, but mentioning this is as far as I'm gonna go.

Adam Merkel
profile image
Another idea that can be added into the law is to reverse the treatment of derivative works. As it is now it is initially treated as a violation of the original copyright unless the creator of the derivative work claims fair use. Fair use in itself is very ambiguous, but for some it's the only defense they can only afford for their creative and non-creative works.

Treating derivatives as their own work and not as a violation of the original work's copyright would open up a new wave of innovation where others with different ideas and perspectives can improve or change original products at their own whim while no longer under the fear of prosecution. Besides, in the US, you are innocent until proven guilty - Shouldn't our ideas and innovations get the same treatment?


none
 
Comment: