“Patent troll” is a common, arguably derogatory term for non-practicing entities (NPEs) – entities that assert patent rights without ever having practiced the inventions to which the patent rights pertain. Many NPEs are in the business of purchasing patents from small inventors and then asserting those patents against numerous companies that are allegedly practicing the claimed invention. Some argue that NPE are a nuisance with no positive contribution to society. That viewpoint, however, does not consider that NPEs are sometimes the only option for small inventors to monetize their legitimate patents. Regardless of where you fall on NPEs, the approach to handling NPEs can be incredibly strategic.
Common approaches of NPEs
Two common approaches NPEs use when asserting their acquired patent rights include (1) the homerun swing seeking massive damages from huge companies for patent infringement and (2) requesting a reasonable royalty that is less than the cost of a lawsuit. The first approach is an all or nothing gamble that often takes years to work out in court. The second approach is a volume game. The NPE seeks relatively small settlement payments. As a result, it makes more financial sense for the defendant to settle the case than fight in court. Sometimes an NPE will use both approaches when asserting a single patent.
Real world patent troll battle
We recently handled one such case. The NPE first attempted a homerun swing against one of the largest companies in the world. When that failed, the NPE began asserting the patent against a whole host of companies under the second approach. Our client was one of those companies.
Initially, an attorney solicited our client on the premise that he was representing several other defendants. This attorney claimed that he could handle the litigation on a “group rate”. Fortunately, for our client, he wisely consulted us. So, how did we ward off this troll?
Step 1 in warding off a patent troll
First step was due diligence. We researched the prosecution and litigation history of the asserted patent. Because the NPE first attempted the homerun swing, we were able to dig up critical admissions by the NPE from the earlier litigation. In addition, the previous defendant left a road map to invalidate the asserted patent. The admissions confirmed that our client was not actually infringing the patent. The road map provided us with a rare ability to file a motion to dismiss with relatively minimal legal fees.
Step 2 in warding off a patent troll
The second step was the initial negotiation. The NPE wanted $125,000 to settle. We, however, had the upper hand. We had a nearly ready file motion to dismiss. Plus, we had a clear admission on the record that undercut the NPE’s infringement theory. So, we countered. Explaining our position and laying out the facts, we suggested that the troll dismiss the case before expending further time and legal fees on a losing case. No settlement was reached.
Step 3 in warding off a patent troll
Third step was applying the pressure. We threatened to file a motion seeking sanctions for filing a frivolous complaint if they didn’t voluntarily dismiss the case. Remember, their own admissions undercut their infringement theory. This fact alone arguably supports a position that this case was frivolous from the onset.
Sure, this was an aggressive position, but we are advocating on behalf of our client. And it worked just as planned.
Outcome
The patent troll voluntarily settled the case the next day with prejudice. Thus, the troll is barred from refiling the complaint against our client. Our client didn’t pay the troll a dime to settle the case and hardly racked up any attorney’s fees.
That’s how you ward off a patent troll.
