Slashdot Mirror
Patent Troll Lawyer Sanctioned Over Extortion Tactics
An anonymous reader writes "For all the stories of patent trolls and copyright trolls, there haven't been too many stories of either being sanctioned for abusive or extortion-like practices... until now. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (one level below the Supreme Court) has approved over $600,000 in sanctions against a lawyer for a patent troll, saying that filing over a hundred lawsuits, each of which was followed up almost immediately with offers to settle at fees much cheaper than it would cost to fight, has the 'indicia of extortion.' Now if only judges started doing that more often."
This is a Federal Circuit court, so the next (and last) step would be to appeal it to the SCOTUS. Let's hope it gets on the docket so this type of egregious misuser of the legal system (the patent trolls) can get the press coverage only a Supreme Court case can give it.
Here's hoping that actions like this will continue, these dirtbags need to feel the pain they constantly shove onto others.
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
I hope I'm just being pessimistic, but it seems like there has been too much good news about the legal system starting to wise up about this sort of thing lately. I keep expecting to see some kind of backlash in the other direction.
So, Apple can sue over patents, and the RIAA can extort money, but if you combine the two it's suddenly over the line? Don't get me wrong, this guy had it coming, but let's not pretend that somehow the issue of patent trolling and extortion is being dealt with on any decent level. Had this guy worked for any large company, he'd be in the clear.
Most patent trolls don't sue entities who "it was clear [] did not infringe on the patents in question". They sue entities who might have infringed on the patents in question, or who definitely infringe on patents that are overly vague and that we think should be invalid, but that USPTO granted and the patent troll holds.
I predict this court case will mean very little.
How close to this to being a precedent which can be used or cited?
I was actually just listening to This American Life a few days ago. Their podcast talking about how much the patent system is abused is extremely enlightening. For example, did you know there is a patent on "Thermally refreshing bread" (IE, toasting)? Not only that, but it was issued in 2000!
http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/441/when-patents-attack
From what I have seen, Rule 11 sanctions are very rarely imposed. I have several cases improperly removed to federal court, and the code provides for attorney fees and costs for improper removal. The Court consistently refused to impose those costs.
This is similar to the rules which prohibit attorneys for committing perjury. I had seen one case where the tentative ruling, written by the law clerk, state that there was no 998 offer sent, despite the sworn statement by defense counsel. The final ruling was unchanged except the finding that the attorney lied.
It takes a lot for the Court to rule against an attorney.
On the other hand, is a legal position frivolous, or is it novel? Where does the line gets drawn?
Fight Spammers!
Given the other 100 defendants settled for the amount they were asking, then Eon-Net made $2.5 - 7.5 million dollars as a result of their trolling. The consequence they had to pay only amounted to 9 to 25 settlements, and it took the defendant $600k to make that happen. Unless it becomes much easier to counter these people, it is still much cheaper to settle, and it is still very profitable for them to continue.
Maybe we can settle for a slightly lower amount and call it a day?
I8-D
Well Flagstar claims $600k in attorney's fees however sometimes those numbers are inflated especially when one side had won. The judgement separated attorney's fees to $488k and $142k for sanctions. Presumably the $488k came from the district court who looked at the fees in detail and determined what was appropriate to b paid.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
... Now, start shooting the patent trolls.
Shooting is insufficient, you have to burn the regenerating motherfuckers.
The RIAA has been using similar tactics only with copyright instead of patent. They file a bunch of John Doe lawsuits, get the people's names, contact them and say "Hey, you can settle with us for a low, low (but not too low) fee or we will sue you for a ton of money." Of course, this patent troll isn't as big as the RIAA is, so the chance that they would be found to be extorting money out of alleged infringers is much lower.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Someone correct me if this analogy on patent trolls is wrong...
1-The troll buys the street in front of his house from the government. I don't know how, the government just thought it was a good idea.
2-The troll then sits in front of his house with a shotgun, and shoots anyone that walks down the street for trespassing. He empties their pockets and then calls the police, which dutifully takes away the bodies.
3-If anyone asks why he doesn't build a wall or a locked gate, the troll answers that his land is clearly marked in the city hall map and people should check it before daring to walk around.
It is insanity.
Nuke em from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.