- Journal Archives
- Volume 16
- Volume 15
- Volume 14
- Volume 13
- Volume 12
- Volume 11
- Volume 10
- Volume 9
- Volume 8
- Volume 7
- Volume 6
- Volume 5
- Volume 4
- Volume 3
- Volume 2
- Volume 1
On February 27th, Reps. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.) and Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah) reintroduced a “new and improved” Saving High-Tech Innovators from Egregious Legal Disputes Act of 2013 (or “SHIELD Act,” pleasing fans of both acronyms and imagery of strife). The legislation is intended to curb the rapid ascent of so-called “patent trolls,” which are reported to have brought 62% of all patent litigation in 2012, allegedly costing the U.S. economy $29 billion a year, while returning only a small fraction of licensing fees to original inventors. The term “patent troll” is itself controversial, with most academics now preferring to use “Patent Assertion Entities” (PAEs) to refer to firms whose business models focus on purchasing and asserting patents, rather than developing and/or manufacturing patented products.
As described by fellow contributor Will Pickens, the SHIELD Act would shift suits brought by PAEs from the “American model” of civil litigation (in which everyone pays their own legal fees, regardless of outcome) to a “loser pays” system (which is thought to deter frivolous or close-call suits with the threat of paying the winner’s attorneys). While this works in other, select areas of the law, the first iteration of the SHIELD Act failed to gain traction in the House. It was perceived to suffer from a number of flaws: (1) it lacked an effective enforcement mechanism; (2) it conditioned legal fees on a finding that the suit had no “reasonable likelihood of success,” which was viewed as easily met by PAEs; and (3) it was clumsily limited to computer hardware and software patents.
The “new and improved” version of the SHIELD Act attempts to address these issues by eliminating the industry-specific language and providing for a more robust enforcement mechanism. Specifically, the new legislation requires companies who fail to prove they are not a PAE to post a bond early in the suit in order to cover costs in the event that it loses. Some observers argue that this provision strikes at the heart of the PAE business model because it makes the PAEs’ strategy of “scattershot litigation” economically infeasible. Since the vast majority of judicial bonds must be fully collateralized, and the average patent infringement suit entails legal fees in excess of $1 million, only a small number of PAEs would have the capital sufficient to provide 100% collateral for the bonds required under the new SHIELD Act.
Still, proponents of the bill who hope it will bring the era of PAE litigation to an end may be disappointed. Skeptics have panned the legislation as deeply flawed. First and foremost, given that a mere 10 NPEs brought over one-sixth of all PAE suits in recent years, simply crippling “most” small PAEs with the bond requirement may not actually reduce the number of PAE suits by much. Many of the most active PAEs are well-capitalized, and may have no difficulty providing collateral under the requirements of the proposed legislation. Critics also claim that the SHIELD Act is both under- and over-inclusive, creating loopholes for PAEs to avoid the its provisions (not to mention tech heavyweights, which have also been known to bring meritless claims on occasion) while potentially penalizing otherwise innocent technology licensing companies.
All of this raises the question: does the SHIELD Act do too much, or too little, in singling out “patent trolls” as the root of all evil in the patent system?
– Niels J. Melius
Recent Blog Posts
- The Silk Road: An Insight Into the Future of Internet Regulation?
- JETLaw Symposium on Intellectual Property Tomorrow
- San Jose Strikes Out Again in Suit Against MLB
- National Marine Fisheries Service Enters the Electronic Age
- Google Fiber Considers Expansion to Nine New Metro Areas
- Let’s Communicate: Incoming National Standards for Commercial Data Breaches?
Tagsadvertising antitrust Apple books career celebrities contracts copyright copyright infringement courts creative content criminal law entertainment Facebook FCC film/television financial First Amendment games Google government intellectual property internet JETLaw journalism lawsuits legislation media medicine Monday Morning JETLawg music NFL patents privacy progress publicity rights radio social networking sports Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) technology telecommunications trademarks Twitter U.S. Constitution