“For years, patent trolls have been the best evidence that pure evil exists. And like most evil entities, they are almost impossible to stop. Even a 2014 U.S. Supreme Court decision that was highly critical of patent trolls has done little to slow their slimy, reptilian-like existence,” Evan Schuman writes for Computerworld. “But a federal judge on Dec. 19 crafted a novel tactic to curb patent trolls when she slapped a half-million-dollar bill on the lawyers and said that they were personally responsible for paying it, not their client. This could truly be a game-changer.”
“This unusual decision could make lawyers hesitate to take patent trolls as clients,” Schuman writes. “Part of the patent-troll economic model is based on lawyers taking a contingency fee, meaning that they take a percentage of whatever money is extracted from victims rather than being paid an hourly fee. This makes the lawyers more of a partner than a traditional contractor, which factored into the judge’s decision. ”
“The ruling may make lawyers say forget about contingency fees; we want upfront hourly fees. And patent trolls, unwilling or unable to do that, may forgo pursuing the most tenuous lawsuits,” Schuman writes. “As a result, the patent-troll business model starts to crumble.”
Read more in the full article here.
MacDailyNews Take: U.S. District Court Judge Denise Cote proves that even a wooden puppet can find a nut on the rare occasion!
Hopefully, more judges do exactly the same thing and do their part to preventing frivolous fishing expeditions and reducing the unnecessary burdens beset upon their courts!
[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Sparkles” for the heads up.]
Good….about time…….
Hey in London the loser pays attorney fees of opposing counsel……
There’s no innocence until proven guilty either.
The “loser pays attorney fees” policy is about protecting wealthy parties from less-wealthy parties.
Just think about who can still afford to throw away money chasing difficult cases, even if they have a legitimate claim. Then think about all the poor people who have a legitimate claim, but one that is hard to prove in court. Also think about the reality that wealthy people can pay the best attorneys to win even when they shouldn’t. Then, the poor person is supposed to pay for the super-expensive attorneys that used procedural games to beat them?
Result: poor people don’t even bother trying to sue rich people who harm them.
So, you tell me – who benefits from the “loser pays” policy?
The public gains – by not having a turbo charged lawyerized society.
Yeah. It would be a much better world if the rich and corporations knew that it was almost impossible to successfully sue them when they hurt people and make defective products.
Seriously. Go read about this. If by “the public” you meant “most people,” then you are horribly wrong about what the outcome would be.
“As a result, the patent-troll business model starts to crumble.”
The crime, right from the get, was that this _was_ a business model.
This is settled and old law. It probably turned out the lawyers goaded these people on to continue a worthless suit just to extract a settlement. Consequently the lawyers can be made responsible. The good part is that other judges will take a closer look at these types of cases… and so will the plaintiffs’ lawyers.
But I wish Judge Cote was as smart about her antitrust decision against Apple & book publishers (v Amazon) in the iBooks case. Those old and arcane “smoking gun” antitrust rules are sorely in need of updating. There is no reason publishers should not have been allowed to change their business terms with anyone. She failed to see that the original terms of sale — wholesaler basis — made absolutely no business sense to publishers, and actually allowed a middleman to undercut them! Crazy. I would expect our legal experts to have at least a basic understanding of business.
I am still trembling in shock at having been awarded my portion of the iBooks settlement — $1.57. I’ve never felt so wealthy, so decadent, so undeserving. I just don’t know what to do with such a King Midas-like windfall — I may find myself donating all of it to some charitable organisation, one in desperate financial need … Starving Lawyers Under Great Stress comes to mind 🤑
I got $45 on my Nook account.
I am surprised that Cote did not rule that in a lost patent troll case, the losing party had to pay Michael Bromwich’s salary for 5 years… and he had to hang around your office ‘watching’.
Let’s see how this ruling holds up on appeal.
Appeals courts are reluctant to uphold large assessments directly against the lawyers in a case unless the actions of the lawyers are *extremely* egregious. Why? Virtually all judges and justices are lawyers.
Ya. And In the the Lucy Koh case of Apple v Samsung, Apple lawyers could not even accuse Samsung lawyers of outright lying …when they were caught red handed !!! stealing Apple’s commercial secrets (concerning deals w other companies) !!!
Almost like the Rrpublicsn ethics committee…
The heads of several patent troll companies in the Eastern District of Texas are, in fact, lawyers themselves, several of them the sons of the Federal Judges presiding over the courts in which the suits were filed. Business model indeed, a family tradition.
This ain’t Kansas anymore….
———————————————–
The 9th Circuit receives about 10,000 to 12,000 cases a year and decides on roughly 6,000.
The court, which has a liberal-leaning reputation, covers nine states from red Arizona, Idaho and Alaska to the blue states of Washington, Hawaii and California, as well as Montana, Oregon and Nevada. With time running out to confirm Judge Lucy Koh and the other vacancies unfilled, it’s increasingly likely President-elect Donald Trump will be able to reshape the influential court.
https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2016/12/29/senator-boxer-ninth-circuit-court-of-appeals-in-judicial-emergency/
———————————————–
The injustice continues. Lazy, corrupt, scumbags.
“With time running out to confirm Judge Lucy Koh…”
Truly? Hallelujah. Best thing I’ve heard in a long time. She totally got Apple v Samsung wrong.
Judge Cote’s order, which sanctioned Plaintiff’s counsel isn’t at all extraordinary and will do nothing to deter a patent holder suing to enforce his/its patent rights. Any lawyer, who bring a case to court, is obliged by the rules of procedure and ethics to only bring a case that has a basis in law and fact, and can be sanctioned for filing a case that doesn’t have that basis, that is, for filing a case that is deemed to be frivolous because it does not have a legally sufficient basis in law and fact.
In Gust, Judge Cote simply concluded that, because of controlling precedent from the U.S. Supreme Court, any competent lawyer knew or should have known that Gust’s patent infringement suit could not succeed and, therefore, the case was frivolous, that is, insufficient in its factual and legal basis.
While the amount of the sanction is large, it is well established that the court can sanction a lawyer for filing frivolous lawsuits, but that procedural sanction has no affect whatsoever on the legal rights of patent holders. Judge Cote’s sanction is simply a admonition to lawyer to do what their oath and the law obliges them to do, which is to only file an action that has sufficient basis in law and fact to present a reasonable prospect that his client may prevail, or be a good faith effort to change the existing law. Judge Cote concluded that Gust’s lawyers failed to meet that standard and should, therefore, be sanctions for wasting the court and the defendant’s resources with a frivolous lawsuit.
There is nothing new here and nothing that will deter any lawyer from filing a patent infringement suit that has a sufficient basis in law and fact.