A patent reform bill has made its way through the House of Representatives. The Senate will take the bill up next.
The Washington Post summarized how the bill would discourage patent trolls as follows:
- Require specificity in patent lawsuits. Right now, patent plaintiffs can file lawsuits that are vague about exactly how the defendant allegedly infringed the plaintiff’s patent. That makes it easier for trolls to sue many people without doing their homework. The bill would require lawsuits to be more specific.
- Make patent ownership more transparent. Patent holders sometimes form shell companies to engage in troll-like behavior. To discourage this, the Innovation Act requires patent plaintiffs to name anyone who has a financial interest in the patent being litigated.
- Make losing plaintiffs pay. The Innovation Act makes it easier for a
victorious defendant to recover the costs of defending against an unsuccessful patent lawsuit. Also, if a losing plaintiff cannot pay, the bill would allow a judge to order others who had a financial stake in the plaintiff’s lawsuit to join the lawsuit and pay the defendant’s legal fees. - Delay discovery to keep costs down. A big reason patent lawsuits are so expensive is that plaintiffs often force defendants to produce millions of pages of e-mails and other internal documents to help them build their case. The Innovation Act would delay this phase of the litigation process until after the courts have addressed legal questions about the meaning of patent claims. Hopefully, that will allow more frivolous lawsuits to be resolved before defendants have racked up huge legal bills.
- Protect end users. A common troll tactic is to sue end users (such as coffee shops offering their customers WiFi access) rather than technology vendors (such as the manufacturer of the WiFi equipment). These small-business defendants can often be intimidated into paying regardless of the merits of a plaintiff’s case. The Innovation Act allows technology vendors to step into the shoes of their customers and fight lawsuits against trolls on their customers’ behalf.
via Patent reform bill passes the house 325 to 91. Here’s what you need to know.
Is it just me, or would similar provisions in ALL CIVIL LITIGATION make our system just a wee bit better? The biggest one for me is the loser pays provision. I insert a loser pays clause in almost every contract draft I do. Most of the time, however, it gets over-lawyered out by a starch-rashed traditionalist from a big firm. The specificity requirement should follow from Rule 11, but judges are too lilly-livered to give that any teeth.
