Yesterday there was an Op-Ed in the New York Times presenting the opinion that District Court Judges should use already existing portions of the law more often to shift fees in patent troll litigation. The writers point out that in 3000 cases analyzed, in only 20 of them were fees shifted to the plaintiff. Fee shifting refers to when the court requires the Plaintiff to pay all or some of the Defendant’s legal fees to defend the lawsuit in the first place. Its an interesting, and quick, read. But what makes it REALLY interesting is that it was penned by Judge Randall Rader, Chief Judge of the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals (which hears all patent lawsuit appeals), along with two others. If you are a defendant that appeals a patent case and part of your appeal is fee shifting, cross your fingers that Judge Rader is on your panel. I also wonder how many District Court judges will see the op-ed and give it any consideration in future fee shifting analyses.
Chief Judge Rader Pens Op-Ed in New York Times
Related Posts
News Transmog, Upgraded: Blizzard’s Machine Learning Magic Patent
Blizzard Entertainment has filed a patent application, pending U.S. Patent Application 2025/0124631, that discusses the technology behind fitting…
News Piecing It Together: Inside KingsIsle’s Jigsaw Game Patent
Mobile devices can be handy, but their small screens can make certain kinds of games difficult to play. …
Analysis The Magic of Patents: Wizard101 and How Patents on Game Mechanics Have Evolved – Part 3
This post is part 3 of our three-part series exploring patents on game mechanics through the lens of Wizard101.…