Anti-Patent Troll Legislation: What is Proposed and What it Could Mean

by White & Case LLP

Proposed patent legislation has been causing a stir at both the federal and state levels recently. In an effort to curb infringement litigation initiated by non-practicing entities, often referred to as "patent trolls," lawmakers have been proposing "anti-patent troll legislation," generating a variety of responses.

Of the numerous bills broaching this controversial subject, two at the federal level appear to have gained traction. The Innovation Act1, sponsored by House Judiciary Chairman Robert Goodlatte and passed in the U.S. House of Representatives on December 5, 2013, is the more ambitious of the two

The changes it suggests to the current patent regime include:

  • Heightened pleading requirements2 —Plaintiffs in infringement suits must identify all asserted patents and describe in a high degree of detail the alleged infringement, including the specific infringed claims of each patent and the name or model number of each accused product;
  • Fee shifting to the losing party3 —The court must award the prevailing party reasonable fees and expenses incurred unless it finds the losing party was justified in its position;
  • Transparency of ownership4 —Patent holders must disclose all beneficial owners of a patent-in-suit, including assignees, entities with the right to sublicense or enforce, entities with a direct financial interest, and parent corporations for all such entities. If a losing plaintiff is unable to pay an award of fees, a defendant may join such beneficial owners to the suit, denying plaintiffs the option of using shell companies to sue in order to obscure their identities and shield their pockets; and
  • Protection of customers5 —Where a plaintiff sues a product manufacturer and its customers, suits against customers may be stayed if the manufacturer agrees to handle the suit on behalf of its customers, avoiding duplicative defense costs.

The Innovation Act suggests, but does not mandate, changes to the practice of sending demand letters to potential defendants. It states in no uncertain terms: "It is the sense of Congress that it is an abuse of the patent system and against public policy for a party to send out purposely evasive demand letters to end users alleging patent infringement."6 The bill advises that demand letters include "basic information" about the patent(s)-in-suit, the claims alleged to be infringing, and how such claims are allegedly infringing; however, it does not mandate that letters include this level of detail and provides neither carrots nor sticks to achieve this goal.7

The second bill, the Patent Transparency and Improvements Act,8 was sponsored by Senate Judiciary Chairman Patrick Leahy and is expected to be debated soon. The current draft of this bill also calls for transparency of ownership and protections for customers.9 It goes beyond the Innovation Act to add a requirement that demand letters meet certain standards or else be deemed an unfair or deceptive practice under the Federal Trade Commission Act.10 This bill does not, however, include changes to pleading standards or fee shifting to the losing party.

Several states, including Vermont, Oregon, Nebraska, and Wisconsin, have initiated similar legislation of their own. For example, Vermont’s Bad Faith Assertions of Patent Infringements law provides judges a list of factors to enable them to identify patent infringement actions that lack legitimacy. These factors closely track the demand letter provisions before Congress, but they also admonish against plaintiffs (i) seeking excessive money, (ii) demanding payments on a short time scale, or (iii) making deceptive claims regarding infringement.11 The law provides victims of bad faith suits the right to sue offending plaintiffs and to receive special damages. The law also gives the Vermont Attorney General an independent cause of action against such plaintiffs.

These bills have been the subject of much debate, with both vocal supporters and equally passionate detractors. At the federal level, President Obama called for patent reform in his State of the Union address, arguing that reform would "allow[] businesses to stay focused on innovation, not costly, needless litigation."12 Chairman Leahy, sponsor of the Patent Transparency and Improvements Act, likens the current misuse of the U.S. patent system to extortion.13

Detractors voice concern that this legislation is too defendant-friendly and will disadvantage small companies legitimately attempting to assert their patents, potentially stifling grassroots innovation. Some warn that this legislation "will have unintended consequences" and can "weaken the patent system overall."14

The state-level legislation has generated its own share of commentary. Those against it argue that federal preemption of state patent legislation extends to this reform.15 Others disagree, arguing that state courts can apply their own reforms as long as they comply with the federal standards currently in place for determining "bad faith."16 Still others argue that some aspects of patent disputes, such as patent ownership, sale, and licensing, are already governed by state law, so this reform would merely extend the current role of states in the patent arena.17

Opponents of state-level legislation also argue that such reform will generate inconsistencies in legal standards that will prove troublesome for both plaintiffs and defendants.18 Patent owners legitimately trying to enforce their rights will potentially have to comply with different laws in each jurisdiction, a heavy burden in a world where innovation disseminates quickly and broadly. Supporters of state-level legislation classify this extra burden as a boon, as it would disrupt the economies of scale that make large-scale, abusive lawsuits feasible, thus helping to curb such suits by increasing the expense of filing them.19 Others argue that allowing states some autonomy in patent legislation may help "grow local innovation ecosystems, like California has with Silicon Valley."20 Vermont and other states looking to enact anti-troll legislation may become havens for companies dealing primarily in innovation, as other states have become for plaintiffs bringing infringement suits. Some contend that such differentiation may also be desirable.

While many anxiously await the outcome of this bout of legislation, we advise not holding your breath—the federal legislation is unlikely to navigate its way through Congress anytime soon, and the fate of state legislation may not be fully determined until after that time.

[1] - Innovation Act, H.R. 3309, 113th Cong. (2013).
[2] - Id. §3(a).
[3] - Id. §3(b).
[4] - Id. §§3(c), 4(a).
[5] - Id. §5(a).
[6] - Id. §3(e).
[7] - Id.
[8] - Patent Transparency and Improvements Act of 2013, S. 1720, 113th Cong. (2013).
[9] - Id. §§3(b), 4(a).
[10] - Id. §5(a).
[11] - Eric Goldman, Vermont Enacts The Nation's First Anti-Patent Trolling Law, FORBES (May 22, 2013, 2:22 PM),
[12] - Diane Bartz, Obama Urges Congress to Pass Anti-Patent Troll Bill, REUTERS (Jan. 28, 2014, 9:49 PM),
[13] - Daniel Wilson, Sens. Introduce Bill To Curb Patent Troll Litigation, LAW360 (Nov. 18, 2013, 8:56 PM),
[14] - Gregory Ferenstein, Google-Backed Anti-Patent Troll Bill Passes The House, TECHCRUNCH (Dec. 5, 2013),
[15] - Goldman, supra.
[16] - Camilla A. Hrdy, What Is Happening In Vermont? Patent Law Reform From The Bottom Up, PATENTLY-O, (May, 27, 2013),
[17] - Timothy B. Lee, How Vermont Could Save the Nation From Patent Trolls, THE WASHINGTON POST (Aug. 1, 2013, 10:05 AM),
[18] - Goldman, supra.
[19] - Lee, supra.
[20] - Hrdy, supra.

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© White & Case LLP | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

White & Case LLP

White & Case LLP on:

Readers' Choice 2017
Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
Sign up using*

Already signed up? Log in here

*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
Privacy Policy (Updated: October 8, 2015):

JD Supra provides users with access to its legal industry publishing services (the "Service") through its website (the "Website") as well as through other sources. Our policies with regard to data collection and use of personal information of users of the Service, regardless of the manner in which users access the Service, and visitors to the Website are set forth in this statement ("Policy"). By using the Service, you signify your acceptance of this Policy.

Information Collection and Use by JD Supra

JD Supra collects users' names, companies, titles, e-mail address and industry. JD Supra also tracks the pages that users visit, logs IP addresses and aggregates non-personally identifiable user data and browser type. This data is gathered using cookies and other technologies.

The information and data collected is used to authenticate users and to send notifications relating to the Service, including email alerts to which users have subscribed; to manage the Service and Website, to improve the Service and to customize the user's experience. This information is also provided to the authors of the content to give them insight into their readership and help them to improve their content, so that it is most useful for our users.

JD Supra does not sell, rent or otherwise provide your details to third parties, other than to the authors of the content on JD Supra.

If you prefer not to enable cookies, you may change your browser settings to disable cookies; however, please note that rejecting cookies while visiting the Website may result in certain parts of the Website not operating correctly or as efficiently as if cookies were allowed.

Email Choice/Opt-out

Users who opt in to receive emails may choose to no longer receive e-mail updates and newsletters by selecting the "opt-out of future email" option in the email they receive from JD Supra or in their JD Supra account management screen.


JD Supra takes reasonable precautions to insure that user information is kept private. We restrict access to user information to those individuals who reasonably need access to perform their job functions, such as our third party email service, customer service personnel and technical staff. However, please note that no method of transmitting or storing data is completely secure and we cannot guarantee the security of user information. Unauthorized entry or use, hardware or software failure, and other factors may compromise the security of user information at any time.

If you have reason to believe that your interaction with us is no longer secure, you must immediately notify us of the problem by contacting us at In the unlikely event that we believe that the security of your user information in our possession or control may have been compromised, we may seek to notify you of that development and, if so, will endeavor to do so as promptly as practicable under the circumstances.

Sharing and Disclosure of Information JD Supra Collects

Except as otherwise described in this privacy statement, JD Supra will not disclose personal information to any third party unless we believe that disclosure is necessary to: (1) comply with applicable laws; (2) respond to governmental inquiries or requests; (3) comply with valid legal process; (4) protect the rights, privacy, safety or property of JD Supra, users of the Service, Website visitors or the public; (5) permit us to pursue available remedies or limit the damages that we may sustain; and (6) enforce our Terms & Conditions of Use.

In the event there is a change in the corporate structure of JD Supra such as, but not limited to, merger, consolidation, sale, liquidation or transfer of substantial assets, JD Supra may, in its sole discretion, transfer, sell or assign information collected on and through the Service to one or more affiliated or unaffiliated third parties.

Links to Other Websites

This Website and the Service may contain links to other websites. The operator of such other websites may collect information about you, including through cookies or other technologies. If you are using the Service through the Website and link to another site, you will leave the Website and this Policy will not apply to your use of and activity on those other sites. We encourage you to read the legal notices posted on those sites, including their privacy policies. We shall have no responsibility or liability for your visitation to, and the data collection and use practices of, such other sites. This Policy applies solely to the information collected in connection with your use of this Website and does not apply to any practices conducted offline or in connection with any other websites.

Changes in Our Privacy Policy

We reserve the right to change this Policy at any time. Please refer to the date at the top of this page to determine when this Policy was last revised. Any changes to our privacy policy will become effective upon posting of the revised policy on the Website. By continuing to use the Service or Website following such changes, you will be deemed to have agreed to such changes. If you do not agree with the terms of this Policy, as it may be amended from time to time, in whole or part, please do not continue using the Service or the Website.

Contacting JD Supra

If you have any questions about this privacy statement, the practices of this site, your dealings with this Web site, or if you would like to change any of the information you have provided to us, please contact us at:

- hide
*With LinkedIn, you don't need to create a separate login to manage your free JD Supra account, and we can make suggestions based on your needs and interests. We will not post anything on LinkedIn in your name. Or, sign up using your email address.