Acclaimed Litigator Featured on the Cover
Acclaimed Litigator Featured on the Cover – The LAW FIRM OF DAYREL SEWELL, PLLC is pleased to announce that Mr. Sewell’s article, “The Ignominious Patent Troll”, found below is the featured publication on the cover of the current issue of Intellectual Property Today.
In Network Protection Sciences, LLC, and similar cases, courts ought to be more willing to utilize sanctions as well as the other methods discussed herein to shutter the courthouse doors to abusive litigation. It is incomprehensible to have these abusive litigation deterrents and not utilize them when the record screams otherwise. Rule 11(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure offers sanctions for litigation abuses and indicates that reasonable attorney fees can serve as one form of sanctions. Additionally, the Patent Act provides that a “court in exceptional cases may award reasonable attorney fees to the prevailing party.” See 35 U.S.C. § 285. Section 285’s language was first included in the 1946 statutory revision of damage calculations. However, rather than limiting the award to “exceptional cases”, the 1946 statute provided that “[t]he court may in its discretion award reasonable attorney’s fees to the prevailing party.” See 35 U.S.C. § 70 (1946 ed.).
It is understood that there is discretion involved in the sanction-worthy, decision-making process. Nevertheless, if rules that are available are not justly applied to appropriate situations, then there is little speculation that abusive litigation tactics will continue. As Federal Circuit Chief Judge Rader says, “[j]udges know the routine all too well, and the law gives them the authority to stop it. We urge them to do so.” See Randall R. Rader, Colleen V. Chien & David Hricik, Make Trolls Pay in Court, N.Y.TIMES, June 5, 2013, at A5.
You are encouraged to subscribe to the firm’s complimentary blog and press release subscription services. We look forward to your comment.
Congratulations on your article being featured! I found it to be extremely intriguing. Before diving into the subsequent news and cases to follow your article, I looked into the term “patent troll” itself. In 2019, a notorious patent troll named Automated Transactions, LLC sued more than a dozen people and trade groups, claiming it was defamed for using the term “patent troll.” The New Hampshire Supreme Court held in Automated Transactions, LLC v. American Bankers Association that calling someone a “patent troll” doesn’t constitute defamation. Where some may brush this news off as nickels and pennies, others who criticize abusive… Read more »