Fred D. Zemel
Partner
201-896-7065 fzemel@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Will NJ Be Latest State to Combat Patent Trolls With Legislation?
Author: Fred D. Zemel
Date: October 22, 2014
Key Contacts
Back
New Jersey is the latest state to contemplate legislation to combat patent trolls, more neutrally referred to as non-practicing entities (NPEs). Critics use the term “patent trolls” because these firms often collect patent rights solely to extract licensing fees.
As previously discussed on the Scarinci Hollenbeck Business Law Blog, so-called patent trolls are at the center of a nationwide debate about how to deter the abuse of patent infringement litigation. NPEs come under scrutiny because they do not directly use the patents they own to produce goods, but rather license them to other companies that do. In some cases, patent trolls pressure smaller businesses to settle suits through the use of aggressive litigation tactics, such as sending threatening demand letters that exaggerate the strength of their claims.
The proposed bi-partisan legislation (Assembly Bill 2462) prohibits a person from making a bad faith assertion of patent infringement. The bill list several factors that a court may consider as evidence of bad faith, including, that the person, when issuing a demand letter asserting or claiming that another entity has engaged in patent infringement, does not provide the following information: the patent number; the name and address of the patent owner or owners and assignee or assignees, if any; and factual allegations concerning the specific areas in which the entity’s products, services, and technology infringe the patent or are covered by the claims in the patent. Other evidence of bad faith may include:
- The demand letter demands payment of a license fee or response within an unreasonably short period of time.
- The person offers to license the patent for an amount that is not based on a reasonable estimate of the value of the license.
- The claim or assertion of patent infringement is meritless, and the person knew, or should have known, that the claim or assertion is meritless.
- The claim or assertion of patent infringement is deceptive.
In addition, the measure authorizes a court, upon a showing of a reasonable likelihood that a person has made a bad faith assertion of patent infringement to require that a bond be posted, which bond shall not exceed $250,000. In addition, a court may award a successful plaintiff exemplary damages in an amount equal to $50,000 or three times the total of damages, costs, and fees, whichever is greater.
States across the country have adopted similar measures and federal legislation to curtail patent litigation abuse is currently pending before Congress. Support for patent reform has grown in recent years, particularly in light of numerous studies highlighting the impact of NPEs.
In 2012, a Lex Machina study made headlines when it revealed that so-called patent trolls filed the majority of all federal patent infringement lawsuits in the United States in 2012. More specifically, the number of lawsuits increased from 24 percent of cases filed in 2007 to 56 percent in 2012. Researchers at Boston University similarly found that these lawsuits cost tech companies more than $29.2 billion in 2011, compared to $6.7 billion in 2005.
If you have questions about this post or would like to discuss patent issues impacting your company, please contact me, Fred Zemel or call 201-806-3364.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Related Posts
See all
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Author: Jesse M. Dimitro
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
Author: Dan Brecher
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
Author: Ronald S. Bienstock
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
Author: Patrick T. Conlon
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Will NJ Be Latest State to Combat Patent Trolls With Legislation?
Author: Fred D. Zemel
New Jersey is the latest state to contemplate legislation to combat patent trolls, more neutrally referred to as non-practicing entities (NPEs). Critics use the term “patent trolls” because these firms often collect patent rights solely to extract licensing fees.
As previously discussed on the Scarinci Hollenbeck Business Law Blog, so-called patent trolls are at the center of a nationwide debate about how to deter the abuse of patent infringement litigation. NPEs come under scrutiny because they do not directly use the patents they own to produce goods, but rather license them to other companies that do. In some cases, patent trolls pressure smaller businesses to settle suits through the use of aggressive litigation tactics, such as sending threatening demand letters that exaggerate the strength of their claims.
The proposed bi-partisan legislation (Assembly Bill 2462) prohibits a person from making a bad faith assertion of patent infringement. The bill list several factors that a court may consider as evidence of bad faith, including, that the person, when issuing a demand letter asserting or claiming that another entity has engaged in patent infringement, does not provide the following information: the patent number; the name and address of the patent owner or owners and assignee or assignees, if any; and factual allegations concerning the specific areas in which the entity’s products, services, and technology infringe the patent or are covered by the claims in the patent. Other evidence of bad faith may include:
- The demand letter demands payment of a license fee or response within an unreasonably short period of time.
- The person offers to license the patent for an amount that is not based on a reasonable estimate of the value of the license.
- The claim or assertion of patent infringement is meritless, and the person knew, or should have known, that the claim or assertion is meritless.
- The claim or assertion of patent infringement is deceptive.
In addition, the measure authorizes a court, upon a showing of a reasonable likelihood that a person has made a bad faith assertion of patent infringement to require that a bond be posted, which bond shall not exceed $250,000. In addition, a court may award a successful plaintiff exemplary damages in an amount equal to $50,000 or three times the total of damages, costs, and fees, whichever is greater.
States across the country have adopted similar measures and federal legislation to curtail patent litigation abuse is currently pending before Congress. Support for patent reform has grown in recent years, particularly in light of numerous studies highlighting the impact of NPEs.
In 2012, a Lex Machina study made headlines when it revealed that so-called patent trolls filed the majority of all federal patent infringement lawsuits in the United States in 2012. More specifically, the number of lawsuits increased from 24 percent of cases filed in 2007 to 56 percent in 2012. Researchers at Boston University similarly found that these lawsuits cost tech companies more than $29.2 billion in 2011, compared to $6.7 billion in 2005.
If you have questions about this post or would like to discuss patent issues impacting your company, please contact me, Fred Zemel or call 201-806-3364.