Frommer Lawrence & Haug has a nice little summary here, including Chief Judge Rader's observations. (Chief has long-standing ties to Senator Hatch.)
My own view is 285 is — easily — broad enough to do the job, and (a) defining a property owner's rights by what they do is silly and (b) if the CAFC would just clear up the law (if the Supreme Court doesn't do it for them) on the meaning of 285), this would be a non-issue.
I just think there are so many definitional problems — under and over inclusion — that this is not fit for statutory correction. Plus see the new post. The more I study 285, the more flexible it is than the CAFC has held.
We need a way of identifying ‘these people’… How about branding numbers on their arms?
Why limit the legislation to patent trolls, we could say,
“Trolls have to post bond equal to the average cost of defense upon filing any civil action.”
Do we have to define troll, or are they going to voluntarily identify themselves?
Now imagine that any offense in law required the aggrieved to post a bond to cover the alleged perpetrator….
Gotta love this:
“The Bill would require patent trolls to post a bond sufficient to cover the accused infringer’s fees.”
Now, imagine if the legislation were written exactly that way?
Comments are closed.