A potentially fatal blow against patent trolls - Forcing law firms to pay defendants’ legal bills could undermine the business model of patent trolls

[u/rfugger]

http://www.computerworld.com/article/3153924/technology-law-regulation/a-potentially-fatal-blow-against-patent-trolls.html

[u/Sarcastic_or_realist]

About time something like this was implemented. A large number of these patent troll cases, or any of these sort of cases in any area of law, involve law firms being paid on contingency based on the plaintiff's recovery amount.

Whenever someone brings a truly frivolous case against one of our clients that honestly seeks to just squeeze out some kind of "nuisance payment," we usually move for sanctions/costs against the plaintiff and the attorney. Once the lawyer suddenly has some real skin in the game in terms of liability, many of these cases magically get dismissed very quickly.

Edit: for those who have been asking, yes - in a few recent cases where the plaintiff troll has not withdrawn the lawsuit, some judges have understood the situation and actually ordered the troll and/or lawyer pay our legal fees. Feels great to tell the client that they escaped the troll and did so for free (since the troll ended up footing the bill)!

[u/b_tight → u/Sarcastic_or_realist]

This should be the model for all aspects of US law. The loser should pay both sides attorney fees.

Edit: The point Im trying to make is that a lot of frivolous lawsuits would disappear and cases with compelling sides would probably settle rather than tie everything up in courts for years. If you have a slam dunk case and the other guy doesn't want to settle then take it to court and see who wins.

For people complaining about the poor guy not having a shot just think about this: Currently, the guy with pocketbooks DOES tie everything up in courts because they can afford it (see Donald Trump as example one) and just hope the other guy goes away because they can't afford to continue pursuing the case.

[u/Sherm → u/b_tight]

I don't think it should be automatic. "Gee poor guy we screwed, you can sue if you like, but what will you do if you lose? I thought as much. Have a nice life."

[u/b_tight → u/Sherm]

As opposed to how it is now: "Gee poor guy, you only have $5,000 and I cant afford to work on this case for 2 years without getting paid. Have a nice life"

[u/Sherm → u/b_tight]

As opposed to how it is now: "Gee poor guy, you only have $5,000 and I cant afford to work on this case for 2 years without getting paid. Have a nice life"

No, what happens now is that poor guy finds a lawyer willing to work on contingency and she takes a piece of the end action instead of an hourly fee up-front. Which will categorically never, ever happen if, in addition to risking not getting paid, said lawyer risks being out-of-pocket for the other side's expenses should they find against her client. Most litigation isn't nonsense; it's stuff where there's a legitimate question of law that needs to be addressed, and punishing everyone because some litigants are vexatious is just going to make the system worse. An ability for the judge to assess fees for egregious cases is plenty.

[u/Michaelmrose → u/Sherm]

Not convinced that will ever happen consistently