"some of the more egregious (maybe unlawful) examples but it will become more common."
Maybe on one end I was right about unlawful, on the other end I may have been wrong that this will become more common depending on how this case goes in what the AG describes as "a-first-of-its-kind lawsuit."
Kudos to the AG here, but I think the "victims" of the patent troll should seek their own remedy, by filing a cause of action including but not limited to tortious interference with business contracts and relationships (not to mention challenging the patent itself).
> I think the "victims" of the patent troll should seek their own remedy, by filing a cause of action including but not limited to tortious interference with business contracts and relationships (not to mention challenging the patent itself).
I don't think it's reasonable to expect all or even many of the victims to have the resources to devote to challenging this kind of thing, especially considering that MPHJ Technology is certainly not the only patent troll out there. Having a state AG take action makes it more of a fair fight.
Just to make sure everyone is on the same page, the individuals have legal rights in addition to the AG, it is not as though the AG can not move forward because an individual party is enforcing their legal rights.
As far as resources, you are correct, that is why the troll in this case went after end users, because they are less likely to have the resources to defend or initiate a legal action; however, the manufacturers of the copy machines have standing and resources to protect their IP and business interests that the troll is tortiously interfering with, same with the retailers.
Exactly. I am pleasantly surprised to see the AG taking up causes for his citizens. I remember a time when my parents wrote complaints to their AG. Perhaps those aren't such bygone actions.
[IANAL] Oh, probably. What will be really interesting is if the AG tries to pierce the corporate veil, under the notion that the troll created the corporation for express purposes of fraud.
I can not confirm, the link to the "Complaint" simply takes me to the same memo/press release. The Complaint would indicate who the AG has named as the defendant(s).
However, even if the Company is a shell and does not even own the patent in question, this will still set precedent vis-a-vis this troll's behavior, and if the troll loses rest assure another shell company will not try to enforce the same patent in the same manner at least in this state. Again that assumes the AG obtains a favorable decision. Separately, like I mention above the victims may want to take this opportunity to challenge the patent itself, if not file a civil cause of action for damages.
"some of the more egregious (maybe unlawful) examples but it will become more common."
Maybe on one end I was right about unlawful, on the other end I may have been wrong that this will become more common depending on how this case goes in what the AG describes as "a-first-of-its-kind lawsuit."
Kudos to the AG here, but I think the "victims" of the patent troll should seek their own remedy, by filing a cause of action including but not limited to tortious interference with business contracts and relationships (not to mention challenging the patent itself).