Slashdot Mirror
Vizio, Destroyer of Patent Trolls
An anonymous reader writes: We read about a lot of patent troll cases. Some are successful and some are not, but many such cases are decided before ever going to court. It's how the patent troll operates — they know exactly how high litigation costs are. Even without a legal leg to stand on, they can ask for settlements that make better financial sense for the target to accept, rather than dumping just as much money into attorney's fees for an uncertain outcome. Fortunately, some companies fight back. TV-maker Vizio is one of these, and they've successfully defended against 16 different patent trolls, some with multiple claims. In addition, they're going on the offensive, trying to wrest legal fees from the plaintiffs for their spurious claims. "For the first time, it stands a real chance, in a case where it spent more than $1 million to win. Two recent Supreme Court decisions make it easier for victorious defendants to collect fees in patent cases. The TV maker is up against a storied patent plaintiffs' firm, Chicago-based Niro, Haller & Niro, that has fought for Oplus tooth and nail. ... For Vizio, the company feels that it's on the verge of getting vindication for a long-standing policy of not backing down to patent trolls."
I will never understand why the loser doesn't pay the winner's fees.
I come here for the love
Will probably be a Vizio
Wherever You Go, There You Are
Suppose you bought a car which had a significant safety defect. You sue the car company. After a spending a million dollars on lawyers and experts, the company's lawyers convince the judge that you filed suit in the wrong court, so you lose. Now you owe the car company a million bucks. That type of outcome would happen often enough that it would be very, very rare for anyone to sue someone with more money than they have.
Instead, the fees are based on fairness- if you file a frivolous suit, you can plan on being ordered to pay the defendant's costs. Also, if you clearly CAUSE a suit, you can be ordered to pay the other party's costs. As an example, suppose you write to the car company asking them to fix the defect, at a cost of $350. They give you the run around for two years, promising to fix it but they never fix it. They admit it's a problem, they admit they caused the problem, but they just won't fix it without being sued. In such a case, you'd probably be awarded costs (and possibly treble damages).
I shall add to your anecdote.
I had a 22" Visio mounted in my Freightliner, (large American style tractor-trailer for those unfamiliar) it survived 7 years of vibration, hard shocks (potholes, bad roads), dust, moisture and extremes in temperatures. I used it another year after I retired and then gave it to my son. He sold it after buying a new TV about a year later.
The only two problems it ever had were:
1: about three years after I put it in the truck, a large capacitor came unglued from the board and broke its connection. I re-soldered it in the back while my student drove. (the ultimate mobile TV repair?)
2: at the six year mark, it developed a yellowish discoloration at the bottom center of the screen. It was only noticeable when viewed from an angle or from strait on if it was displaying a blank screen. It was difficult to see strait on with anything moving on the screen (DVD, computer game).
I was very impressed with its performance as it lived through total hellish abuse and continued to function for years afterward. It may even still be working. I certainly wouldn't be surprised!
Donald Trump, on a crusade to make Nixon look respectable
The appeals courts generally rule on the LAW, not on the FACTS. So when they overturn a decision they frequently remand it with an instruction (not a request) to decide it in accordance with a specific understanding of the law.
Why send it back rather than just deciding the outcome of the case? Because the appellant ruling on the law may or may not change the outcome of a case. Imagine someone confessed to a murder, and there were also witnesses. The appellant court might rule that as a matter of law the confession is not admissible. They'd remand the case to be tried without the confession. The murderer might well still be convicted based on witness testimony and other evidence. The appeals court doesn't hear from witnesses, they just rule on points of law. The trial court would need to judge guilt or innocence, while following the appellant court's instruction to not play the confession for the jury.
Sure, some will say 'that's how the system works', but I don't see why companies should have to pay to clean up a government agency's screwups.
Also, it might make the USPTO think twice (read: actually do their job) before approving bogus "patents".
AC comments get piped to
That isn't true at all. I know because I have represented many people on a contingency fee basis. However, like most patent attorneys, before representing someone on a contingency basis, I make sure that a) their patent is good, and b) there is money to be made from enforcing the patent.
However, most patent lawyers will not represent a patent holder in an IPR proceeding on a contingency basis. Because IPR proceedings are now the norm, any patent holder must have a warchest of several hundred thousand dollars to bring any suit against an infringer. If a "loser pay" system is implemented, the patent holder would need to have several million in the bank before bringing suit. This allows large corporations to stonewall and bankrupt patent holders.
It's kind of like winning a cockfight though. The whole contest exists only because the surrounding environment is corrupt and/or seedy.
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Unfortunately, that would mean the judge might not review the fee schedule. This induces a corporate attorney to assign all his compensation and overhead for a period of months (even if he did other tasks during that period). It would also encourage big-fee-but-a-secret-kickback negotiations (which are not discoverable, due to attorney-client privilege). This is a common failing when relying on factoids that are determined by the recordkeeping and other actions of ... your opponent (dare I say, enemy?).
Example: a shell corporation sues, the lawyer for the shell corporation 'hires'
out lots of expensive work to the parent corporation for technical support.
When the lsoer pays for this work, the parent corporation profits twice... and
the second payment is tax-free (it's a recovery of 'costs').