[bsimpson]

> reformed rules would have forced trolls like eDekka to actually explain how their targets infringe their patents. However, that's not currently a requirement

How is it even possible to sue somebody for something you can't show that they did?

[throwawaykf05]

You are supposed to prove it during the lawsuit, but you can get one filed just on "belief" and vague accusations. This stays the lawyers bills running for the defendant while the plaintiff can just wait, which is a tactic often resulting in early settlements.

In the US there is something called rule 11 that prevents you from filing bad faith lawsuits, but it is a pretty low bar. IMO if this is strengthened by, say, requiring detailed claim charts up front, it can go a long way in deterring nuisance lawsuits.

[monochromatic]

It's a question of how much specificity you need when you're first starting the suit. Discovery is the process in a civil lawsuit that lets you figure out exactly what happened.