Speaking Monday at Emory on Troll Litigation

Monday, March 24 at 6 I’ll be on a panel discussing troll litigation at Emory Law School.  In that regard, here’s a post here discussing an article I wrote several years ago about NPE litigation.  The guy liked my article, or otherwise I wouldn’t have posted it.  He links to my article.  Further, my op-ed with Chief Judge Rader and Colleen Chien is here.  Please come if you can.  I’m going to try to be pro-troll!

About David

Professor of Law, Mercer University School of Law. Formerly Of Counsel, Taylor English Duma, LLP and in 2012-13, judicial clerk to Chief Judge Rader.

8 thoughts on “Speaking Monday at Emory on Troll Litigation

  1. 3

    From the link: “ And without court limits, discovery in patent litigation is too often a law firm money maker.

    Can there be any doubt? Note that this comment applies to lawyers on both sides of the contest.

    All too often the anti-patent side is blowing their trumpet so loudly that this nuanced view just cannot be heard.

    1. 2.1

      Prof. Hricik,

      Don’t you know? In the patent world, there are those attacking the system that are against anyone making money.

      From the Left (anyone who is a low-life bottom feeder grubbing type)
      From the Right (anyone else who is a low-life bottom feeder grubbing type).

      Sure, there are different motivations, but the fact of the matter remains that people making money off of patents is liked by neither side.

      The Left have their anti-property, anti-making-any-money side
      The Right would rather compete on non-patent, non-established-industry-upsetting-other-market-factors-such-as-size-and-market-dominance avenues.

      1. 2.1.1

        I dunno if I agree none of them want to make money. Sometimes it reminds me of the debate between developed and developing countries — developed countries want strong patent protection, less developed ones, not so much. Google wants strong patent protection for its patents, but not those of the less developed companies (to pick an obvious example).

        IMHO, it makes no sense, whatsoever, to define a patent owner’s right to relief based upon how they acquired the patent. Someone innovated (put that debate to the side, about patent quality). The fact that that someone then sold the patent to a company who can better utilize the property seems a good thing…


          I agree with you on multiple levels.

          The developed/developing country dichotomy is witnessed throughout history – including early US as a brigand nation (think European copyright) and current day China evolving away from a brigand with its movement towards toughening its IP laws (now that they have ‘stolen’ enough).

          The history of the US and its fundamental views on alienability of property clearly speak to the fact that it should not matter at all who is holding the property (for any sense of substantive legal right). I add the caveat as I allow for the fact that in at least one instance we do care: small and micro entity status and the level of maintenance fee payment. I distinguish this from substantive rights in that the level of fee paid has no effect on the substantive rights.

          The US system was explicitly set up to promote the alienability of the property that is a patent.

  2. 1

    I’m going to try to be pro-troll!

    First the pro-inventor on the 101 stance and now this…?

    Are you trying to lose your “Academics” license…?


Comments are closed.