1,144
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
→Blog Post
Patent trolls may also target a slew of companies that tangentially intersect the sphere of a patent. One famous example of a patent troll is MPHJ Technology Investment, who claimed to have patents that cover any networked "scan-to-email" function. MPHJ sent demand letters to more than 16,000 small businesses, each letter demanding license fees of at least $1000 per worker. Patent trolls also seem to disproportionately affect small businesses. eDekka, widely considered one of the top patent trolling firms, filed lawsuits against 101 companies for patent infringement in 2015, 55% of which are considered small businesses under SBA regulations.
The best way to combat these trolls seems dubious at best, so what can be done? Thankfully, most evidence shows that true patent trolling accounts for only a tiny fraction of overall patent litigation. While specifically anti-trolling legislation like the recently proposed STRONG Patents Act appears to gives the FTC the power to determine that certain demand letters are in "bad faith" and penalize the companies that issue these letters, Congress last passed comprehensive patent reform only 5 years [https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/senate-bill/632/text#toc-id645863c82106422dbabf0358ad52716d ago] in 2011, and the unintended consequences from those changes still appear to be manifesting. So what can be done? Specifically anti-trolling legislation like the recently proposed STRONG Patents Act appears to gives the FTC the power to determine that certain demand letters are in "bad faith" and penalize the companies that issue these letters, but also specifically protect mistakes that were made in good faith. Without carefully analyzing the potential effects of broad reform, Congress may want to avoid rushing to combat the small amount of abusive litigation activity with sweeping changes that could negatively affect everyone.
==References==
In line. See above.
