The widely reported decision of the Supreme Court that limits the ability of plaintiffs (often ‘patent trolls’) to sue outside of the defendant’s incorporated jurisdiction, appears to have strategic implications for IP private investigators in uncovering the truth.
Briefly, ‘patent trolls’ make bogus claims against smaller companies alleging infringement, which compels the companies to then pay royalties (even when the defendant knows it’s an illegitimate claim) because they do not have the resources to investigate the ‘troll.” Many legal experts agree it’s an abuse of the patent law system.
In the past, IP private investigators were helpful in cases where a ‘patent troll’ files a claim against a company in the Eastern District of Texas (known to be friendly to plaintiffs, but, still requiring the “troll” to prove Bonafide roots in that Texas district to make the claim.)
So, IP investigators would simply expose that the plaintiff essentially set-up a ‘shell’ front to give that Bonafide appearance (i.e., business address is only a mailbox; studio apartment was recently rented.) And, in fact, the investigation would also reveal that the plaintiff does indeed have Bona fide roots, except, nowhere near East Texas.
Now, since ‘patent trolls’ can only file suit in the defendant’s state of incorporation, (which is long overdue) IP private investigators are left to find other ways to offer litigation support. One way to be of service is for the IP investigator to uncover the ‘patent trolls’ bogus history of claims.
To read the details of the Supreme Court decision, see the link to the following shared article, published in The Globe and Mail, and written by Andrew Chung for Reuters on May 22. 2017:
Disclaimer: IPPIBlog.com is offered as a service to the professional IP community. While every effort has been made to check information in this blog, we provide no guarantees or warranties, express or implied, with regard to content provided in IPPIBlog.com. We disclaim any and all liability and responsibility for the qualification or accuracy of representations made by the contributors or for any disputes that may arise. It is the responsibility of the readers to independently investigate and verify the credentials of such person and the accuracy and validity of the information provided by them. This blog is provided for general information purposes only and is not intended to provide legal or other professional advice.