Supreme Court Asked To Clear Up Who Pays For Frivolous Patent Lawsuits

BY Heather Greenfield
February 27, 2014

Washington – The Supreme Court heard oral arguments today about frivolous patent litigation in order to weigh in on when the loser should have to pay the legal fees of the winner.

The Computer & Communications Industry Association has advocated for major patent reform for more than a decade. The following can be attributed to CCIA President & CEO Ed Black:

“While we hope the Supreme Court can bring clarity on the specific issues before it, the arguments were another sign that the patent system is in serious need of reform. This question of how frivolous a patent suit can be before the loser must pay the winner’s fees is important, but just one of many issues that need to be addressed, and shows why we need patent reform legislation.”

 

Related Articles

PTO Requests Comments On Changes To Make It Difficult To Challenge Weak Patents

Oct 19, 2020

Washington – The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has requested comments on making permanent changes to the system currently used to challenge weak or overly broad patents known as inter partes review.  The Computer & Communications Industry Association sent a letter to Patent and Trademark Office Director Iancu last year warning him that making it…

Supreme Court To Hear Case, Set Precedent On Interoperability For Tech Products

Oct 6, 2020

Washington — The Supreme Court will hear oral argument in a case Wednesday that has implications for much of the tech industry and the economy. The Google v. Oracle case, which has been litigated for more than a decade, could determine whether the reuse of certain program elements necessary for interoperability is an infringement of…

CCIA Expresses Disappointment In Flawed 9th Circuit Qualcomm Decision

Aug 11, 2020

Washington — The 9th Circuit today overturned a district court decision by Judge Lucy Koh, holding that Qualcomm had not violated the antitrust laws by refusing to license competitors in violation of its contractual obligation to do so, by refusing to sell chips unless the customer first took a patent license, and by engaging in…