Previous posts on IP litigation and IP generally.

Here is a link to an index of some of my previous posts on intellectual property litigation. There should be more added to the list in 2014.

The use of state consumer protection laws to curb litigation by "patent trolls."

There is a recent trend among states to try and use state consumer protection laws to prevent patent trolls from suing in their federal courts. I briefly discussed patent trolls elsewhere. When states use their own laws to inhibit the operation of federal law, such as here, federal pre-emption is implicated. The pre-emption doctrine comes from the Supremacy Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Under it, state laws that conflict with federal law are ineffective.

In this context, state consumer protection laws may or may not be pre-empted. There is another reason they may be unconstitutional: the burden on interstate commerce. Under the Commerce Clause, the federal government has the right to govern interstate commerce. Even though the federal government has not spoken directly on this issue, states cannot enact or use legislation that discriminates against interstate commerce. Using state consumer protection laws this way burdens interstate commerce, because one cannot avoid suing in a particular state if jurisdiction or venue requirements mandate that a lawsuit be filed there. Accordingly, a plaintiff entitled to redress could be foreclosed an opportunity to bring a lawsuit.

This does not mean that patent trolls are not a problem. It means that states likely have to wait for the federal government to address the issue. State consumer protection laws could be a valid way to defend an infringement lawsuit by a putative patent troll, but they cannot preclude a party from bringing the lawsuit.

On direct and indirect patent infringement.

There are two types of patent infringement, direct and indirect. Direct infringement occurs if you make, use, offer to sell, sell or import any patented invention in the U.S. without authorization of the patent holder. Indirect infringement occurs in two scenarios. First, you are guilty of induced infringement if you induce someone else to infringe another person's patent. Second, you are guilty of contributory infringement if you offer to sell, sell or import a component of a patented invention, and know that the component will be used for infringing purposes.

Direct infringement is a strict liability tort, which means you can be held liable without intending to do anything wrong. Induced and contributory infringement are not strict liability torts; both require the alleged infringer to know he or she is doing something wrong.

If the claims of a patent cover a product or apparatus, direct infringement will always be present. If a patent claims a method (method patent), you can also have divided infringement, which is a type of induced infringement. With divided infringement, a defendant can be held liable if he or she performed some steps of a claimed method and had others do the remaining steps, or if he or she had others to collectively perform all of the steps of the claimed method but no single party did all of the steps individually.

On false patent marking.

False patent marking occurs when someone marks an unpatented article as patented, intending to deceive the public, and it results in "competitive injury." Though undefined in the false marking statute, competitive injury can be loosely defined as "actual monetary damages." Before September 2011, competitive injury was not required to bring a false marking suit. In fact, a plaintiff could sue any defendant for false marking on behalf of the United States (which is called suing "qui tam").

The Leahy-Smith America Invents Act amended the false marking statute by requiring competitive injury. It is not that difficult to show competitive injury, provided you have "standing."

Showing an intent to deceive is more difficult. False marking alleges fraudulent conduct, and fraud requires "particularity" in the complaint. Accordingly, a false marking complaint must explain the "who," "what," "when," "where," and "why" of false marking conduct. This is incredibly difficult before discovery, and jurisdictional discovery may be required.

Basically, you have to explain your allegations in more detail than an ordinary case when suing for false marking or fraud. If you do not sufficiently explain yourself and the false marking conduct, your complaint could be dismissed.

Dealing with patent trolls in litigation.

Currently, patent trolls are a problem in intellectual property litigation. They opportunistically seek and enforce patents to make money, not bringing lawsuits in good faith. This is a good article from a patent litigator about dealing with patent trolls.

During the summer of 2013, there have been a few legislative proposals aimed at stopping patent trolls. It remains to be seen whether the proposals will become law or not.