[jmintz]

How would this actually work? Unless a bond has to be posted the troll would just make sure the trolling entity (almost always a separate company shielding liability from true owner) has zero assets to pay the legal bills. Or did I misunderstand something?

[skurry]

Wouldn't the troll entity have at least control of the patents it's suing for?

[jmintz]

Sure but if they lost the case doesn't that suggest those patents are worthless? If they can't be enforced they aren't effective patents.

[learc83]

At least it would keep them from using them to extort money from other victims.

A patent troll could lose without the patent being invalidated. It could be that the patent is enforceable, but not in this particular case (a case where a jury finds the defendant wasn't actually infringing).

We've seen patent trolls go after victims with nebulous claims that might not win in court even though the patent wasn't likely to be invalidated.

This may prevent those situations because if they lose and they have to hand over the patent, it deprives them of future extortion money.

It may at the least limit the scope of companies they go after to actual likely infringers.

[noonespecial]

I thought I saw somewhere that the loathsome "Intellectual" Ventures had a program where you could rent some patents to sue with.

[greenyoda]

If I remember correctly, the courts ruled against this practice, deciding that only the actual owner of a patent had standing to sue for infringement.

[learc83]

I'm not sure about patents, but at least with copyright the judge in the Righthaven case ruled that Righthaven lacked standing to sue because they didn't have exclusive rights to the copyright.