Testing the Limits of State 'Anti-Troll' Laws

"Whether or not the Federal Circuit reaches a merits decision in Micron v. Longhorn, the case foreshadows an emerging tension between state efforts to curb patent abuse and the federal government's power over patent law. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on Monday heard oral argument in Micron Technology v. Longhorn IP, a test of state "anti-troll" statutes' interplay with federal patent law."

""Upon motion by a target and a finding by the court that a target has established a reasonable likelihood that a person has made a bad faith assertion of patent infringement . . . , the court shall require the person to post a bond in an amount equal to a good faith estimate of the target's costs to litigate the claim and amounts reasonably likely to be recovered under this chapter, conditioned upon payment of any amounts finally determined to be due to the target." Idaho Stat. § 48-1707."

Micron v. Longhorn tests the interaction between state anti-troll statutes and federal patent law at the Federal Circuit. Over thirty states have enacted laws prohibiting bad-faith patent infringement assertions to deter aggressive demand letters and dubious enforcement. Idaho's statute bars bad-faith assertions in any communication and allows targets to recover treble damages, litigation costs, and attorneys' fees. The statute also empowers courts to require alleged bad-faith assertors to post a bond equal to an estimate of litigation costs and likely recoveries. As inter partes review becomes harder to obtain, state statutes could become important tools to discourage abusive patent enforcement if constitutional questions are resolved.

Read at IPWatchdog.com | Patents & Intellectual Property Law