If more companies let patent trolls go to court their repeated losses would fall under the first part of California's definition, but since they settle, trolls are technically not even litigants.
Most patent trolls file in the Western District of Texas; it's a troll friendly district with a troll friendly judge. They sometimes win with garbage patents.
How much does it cost to argue in court that a particular entity is an abuser though? Someone has to be willing to cover those costs up front, otherwise people will just keep settling if they don't want to go through that process.
It's not just cost, it's cost x uncertainty of outcome. A settlement is very tempting from cost x uncertainty alone. But it also has other merits: when the rich, powerful incumbent gives in and settles, the fragile thrifty upstart won't see the slightest chance of winning and either beg the troll for an affordable licence (but they won't get a good offer) or look for a completely different line of business. To the incumbent, the settlement is a fee paid for moat-as-a-service provided by the troll.