U.S. top court considers the 'patent troll' problem

WASHINGTON Wed Feb 26, 2014 5:03pm EST

Related Topics

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A dispute between two fitness equipment makers landed at the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday, giving justices a chance to consider how to deal with so-called patent trolls, companies that acquire patents to sue for infringement or extract licensing fees.

It and a second related case come to the court after Congress, the White House and the Federal Trade Commission attempted to address the issue for more than a decade.

Wednesday's cases focused on how to determine when a losing company in a patent case should pay the winner's legal fees because the case was frivolous.

The first case began when ICON Health & Fitness Inc sued a rival, Octane Fitness LLC, accusing Octane of infringing one of its patents on elliptical trainers.

Octane won, and asked to be reimbursed for the estimated $1.3 million it spent fighting the lawsuit. Both the U.S. district court and an appeals court that specializes in patents declined to award the fees.

Rudolph Telscher, a lawyer for Octane, argued that fees should be awarded because the company's case is "exceptional." The U.S. Patent Act, which dates to 1952, says that the court may award legal fees to the winning side "in exceptional cases."

That argument seemed to concern Justice Samuel Alito, who said that district court judges typically hear few patent cases.

"Let's say that I'm a district judge someplace and I rarely get a patent case," he said. "How am I supposed to determine whether the case is exceptional? Exceptional compared to what? I have very little basis for comparison."

As Telscher and the justices wrangled over whether fees should be given in "meritless cases," "exceptional cases," or because of "baselessness" or "bad faith," Justice Stephen Breyer homed in on the key issue.

Breyer cited a much-criticized tactic in which patent trolls send letters to companies or individuals accusing them of infringement while proposing a deal: an offer to license their patent for a fraction of the potential cost of a legal fight.

"All they (PAEs) did was say, 'We don't want to go to court and cost you $2 million. Please sent us a check for $1,000, and we'll license it for you. They do that to 40,000 people, and when someone challenges it and goes to court, it costs them about $2 million," he said, asking why that hypothetical case wouldn't be appropriate for fee shifting.

Attorney Carter Phillips, who argued for ICON, responded that the incident described by Breyer was "a very small slice of the problem of litigation."

"It may be a small slice of litigation, but it is a slice that costs a lot of people a lot of money," responded Breyer.

Phillips pressed on: "You know, the case you have in front of you, though, is not a case like that." Unlike patent trolls, ICON actually makes products, he said.

Major technology firms such as Google Inc and Apple Inc have long complained about PAEs, saying the litigation stifles innovation and costs billions of dollars in legal fees.

Patent litigation costs have grown from $7 billion in 2005 to $29 billion in 2011, when 8,842 lawsuits were initiated by PAEs against 2,150 companies, an official at tech company EMC Corp told a congressional panel in October.

Congress is considering legislation that would use attorney's fees to fight frivolous litigation.

In December, the U.S. House of Representatives approved a bill encouraging judges hearing patent cases to award fees to the winner of an infringement lawsuit, among other steps. A similar bill has been proposed in the Senate.

Wednesday's second case was also narrowly focused on the issue of legal fees.

In Highmark Inc and Allcare Health Management System Inc, health insurer Highmark was initially awarded attorney fees by the district court, but the court later tossed them out.

Highmark asked the court for the fees to be paid, citing statements by the district court that "Allcare had not done its homework when it began trolling for dollars and threatening litigation."

The court also said that Allcare continued to pursue "meritless allegations after the lack of merit became apparent."

Allcare disagreed.

In both cases, attorneys for the U.S. government urged the court to relax the standard for awarding attorney's fees to the prevailing side if the company alleging infringement did so frivolously.

(Reporting by Diane Bartz; Editing by Ros Krasny and Douglas Royalty)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (3)
MarilynD wrote:
What does PAE stand for? I couldn’t tell from the article.

Feb 27, 2014 10:16am EST  --  Report as abuse
RichardFalk wrote:
“Exceptional” for conduct is always a bad standard. What if nearly everyone decided to behave badly so the behavior was not exceptional by any standard. That’s obviously ridiculous. The standard should be absolute set based on the type of behavior that is allowed vs. not allowed and it can take into account the totality of circumstances. It should not take into account motivation or intent since that is hard to prove and is irrelevant since “ignorance of the law is no excuse” or in terms of rules of professional conduct, there is the expectation of competency. Abusive behavior remains abusive regardless of the excuse.

The standard should also be strict but with a varying scale of degree and it should be focussed on attorney conduct since plaintiffs can shield themselves from punishments. Besides, attorneys are the entrée and gatekeepers into the legal system so have a responsibility to not do just anything their clients ask (they generally don’t do illegal behavior, for example). There should be a point system and a doctrine of repetitive cumulative harm treating an offense not as if it were unique, but considering what would happen if everyone behaved this way because if such conduct is not punished, it generally WILL become more prevalent.

There also needs to be an audit system outside of the courts since 92% of patent infringement cases settle and an even larger number of demand letters settle without a case being filed and nearly all of these are hidden behind non-disclosure agreements. This provides cover for the argument that there is no patent litigation abuse problem because these hidden settlements can be claimed to be legitimate strong cases when the true number of cases without merit is unknown.

The above suggestions will not come to pass anytime soon because the current mode of thinking is reflected in the following quote from a speech given by a member of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC):


“With respect to the Rule 11 proposals and the asserted desire for more sanctions, I believe what you really want is not more sanctions, but more fee shifting. Having been a district judge, I know that, while sometimes you must do it, it is difficult to sanction lawyers. Most of us that have been on the district bench were also practicing lawyers, and we know that people make mistakes, we know that lawyers can be pushed in certain directions by their clients, and we know that they do not usually intend to step over the line. And we know that a sanction can destroy a lawyer’s career.”

Whatever happened to justice being blind and to avoiding the appearance of impropriety?

Feb 27, 2014 11:36pm EST  --  Report as abuse
Poneros wrote:
Why not just have it so that if you filed the original patent you can claim attorney fees if you win.

If you bought the patent, have no demonstrate-able prior relative production (e.g the elliptical trainers but the company doesn’t even make any exercise equipment) then you can’t make any claim. If you can demonstrate relative production then you can claim attorney fees.

This type of regulation could be enough to discourage trolling.

Mar 03, 2014 2:32pm EST  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.