{"database": "press", "table": "releases", "rows": [["https://paulsen.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=105&itemid=1270", "Patent trolls collect \"nuisance fees\" and political enemies", "2013-06-17", "2013", "2013-06", "Republican", "House", "MN", "Erik Paulsen", "P000594", "paulsen.house.gov", null, null, "legacy", "Article by: JIM SPENCER , Star Tribune Updated: June 15, 2013 - 9:32 PM\r\n\r\n\tFirms insist they perform a valuable function in buying up intellectual property.\r\n\r\n\tWASHINGTON \u2013 Mason Cos. of Chippewa Falls, Wis., sells shoes, women\u2019s clothing and general merchandise on the Internet and through mail-order catalogs. It does not produce or market computers or their components.\r\n\r\n\tYet six times in the past three years the 100-year-old business has been sued for infringing on software patents. Each time, the company felt no choice but to pay a licensing fee to avoid litigation costing 10 times as much to adjudicate.\r\n\r\n\t\u201cIt\u2019s a shakedown,\u201d Mason\u2019s general counsel Tim Scobie said.\r\n\r\n\tMason is one of thousands of U.S. businesses targeted each year by patent trolls, companies that invent nothing but buy patents from companies and individuals that do. Critics say the trolls then file multiple suits in hopes of collecting licensing fees from people and businesses too poor or too busy to fight them in court.\r\n\r\n\t\u201cYou end up with companies that aren\u2019t making anything, trying to extract a nuisance fee,\u201d explained Tom Cotter, a patent expert at the University of Minnesota Law School.\r\n\r\n\tCotter said the number of \u201cpatent assertion entities\u201d and \u201cnon-practicing entities\u201d \u2014 the formal names for trolls \u2014 has increased dramatically in the past few years. The growth stems from an explosion of patents for minute bits of information technology and broadly applicable business methods.\r\n\r\n\tFor example, a single smartphone may contain thousands of patented parts, or a single patented business method could be applied to thousands of different circumstances.\r\n\r\n\tCompanies that buy and enforce patents generally reject the label of trolls. They say they have a legitimate business and provide a necessary way for small companies or individuals to receive payment for their intellectual property.\r\n\r\n\tA spokeswoman for Intellectual Ventures, one of the country\u2019s biggest non-practicing entities, declined to be interviewed. But a blog entry by the company\u2019s founder, Peter Detkin, summed up the philosophy: \u201cThe owner of the [intellectual property] is irrelevant; the fact of the [intellectual property] is what matters.\u201d\r\n\r\n\tA recent survey by RPX Corp., a patent risk management firm, showed that patent trolls filed 62 percent of all patent infringement claims in 2012, up from 19 percent in 2006. The cost of legal fees and settlements from patent troll suits grew from $5.3 billion in 2008 to $10.9 billion in 2012.\r\n\r\n\tThe issue has reached such proportions that the White House declared war on patent trolls. Earlier this month, President Obama outlined legislative and regulatory fixes for a situation he said is hurting America\u2019s high-tech innovation and putting the country at a competitive disadvantage in the global economy.\r\n\r\n\tPatent assertion entities, said the president, \u201cleverage and hijack somebody else\u2019s idea and see if they can extort some money out of them.\u201d\r\n\r\n\tMass filings of infringement suits for a single patent are an expensive, time-consuming distraction to businesses and people who must defend themselves, said Dan McDonald, a patent attorney with the Minneapolis firm of Merchant & Gould, who just published a book on patent trolls.\r\n\r\n\t\u201cThe main impact,\u201d he said, \u201cis that companies have to spend money on lawyers instead of research and development.\u201d\r\n\r\n\tBut McDonald said companies sometimes must push back. He recently persuaded a small Minnesota medical device maker to challenge the validity of patents cited in three troll suits.\r\n\r\n\tSt. Paul-based 3M has interests on both sides of the issue. 3M needs to enforce the patents it receives to protect a $1.5 billion annual research and development effort, said Kevin Rhodes, the company\u2019s vice president for intellectual property. But 3M also has been a target of patent infringement claims by companies that don\u2019t develop or make products.\r\n\r\n\t\u201cWe\u2019re not labeling anyone,\u201d Rhodes said last week as he moved around Capitol Hill talking to members of Congress about patent issues. But \u201cthere are some unfortunate practices that have developed.\u201d\r\n\r\n\tWhile 3M worries that proposed legislation could make it harder for inventors to protect their intellectual property, the company has offered sample language for a law that would make it easier to see when shell companies buy up old patents and sue. Also, 3M has crafted language for a law that would make it easier to sanction those bringing frivolous patent suits.\r\n\r\n\tThe House and Senate seem poised to act, as they did two years ago when they agreed to the America Invents Act, the first comprehensive patent reform in more than 50 years.\r\n\r\n\t\u201cPatent trolls are a clear drag on innovation,\u201d Sen. Amy Klobuchar said. \u201cThis is not just some made-up anecdotal problem.\u201d\r\n\r\n\tThe Minnesota Democrat expects to examine the issue as part of a larger patent hearing she will hold as chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee\u2019s Anti-Trust Subcommittee.\r\n\r\n\tRep. Erik Paulsen, a Republican representing Minnesota\u2019s Third Congressional District, believes the House and Senate will come quickly to a bipartisan agreement.\r\n\r\n\t\u201cThere is abuse that\u2019s going on,\u201d he said of patent trolls. \u201cThe challenge is to target the abusers in an effective way without casting too wide a net.\u201d\r\n\r\n\tThe way patent laws work, anyone who makes, sells or uses a legally patented device, technology or idea without paying a licensing fee breaks the law, the U\u2019s Cotter said. This fact has led patent assertion entities and non-practicing entities deep into the supply and demand chain.\r\n\r\n\t\u201cThey blanket the country with suits on the hunch that some people will pay,\u201d Mike Lafeber of Minneapolis law firm Briggs and Morgan said. \u201cThey have stepped over a line.\u201d\r\n\r\n\tA decade ago, \u201cpatent owners rarely if ever sued consumers,\u201d Cotter noted. \u201cToday they might go after a coffee shop for using wireless technology.\u201d\r\n\r\n\tOr they might go after an online seller like Mason Cos. for using software it had no role in developing or selling. What started more than a century ago as a shoemaking company is being coerced into paying licensing fees merely \u201cfor selling stuff on the Internet,\u201d Scobie said.\r\n\r\n\t\u201cIt\u2019s not Oracle calling us up saying we\u2019re using their spreadsheet,\u201d he explained. \u201cIt\u2019s law firms that bought a bunch of patents at a fire sale.\u201d\r\n\r\n\tPaying off those people is a \u201cgut-wrenching ordeal,\u201d Scobie said. But it is also an inevitable business decision.\r\n\r\n\t\u201cWe are a small organization in a small town,\u201d he said. \u201cIf it\u2019s going to cost us $25,000 for a license fee or it\u2019s going to cost us $250,000 to fight, don\u2019t even bother asking me.\u201d\r\n\r\n\tRead entire article online here.\u00a0\r\n\r\n\t###", 1, "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z", "2026-03-30T12:14:52Z"]], "columns": ["url", "title", "date", "year", "month", "party", "chamber", "state", "member_name", "bioguide_id", "domain", "scraper", "source", "date_source", "text", "has_text", "collected_at", "updated_at"], "primary_keys": ["url"], "primary_key_values": ["https://paulsen.house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=105&itemid=1270"], "units": {}, "query_ms": 1.0343203321099281, "source": "dwillis/congress-press", "source_url": "https://github.com/dwillis/congress-press", "license": "MIT", "license_url": "https://github.com/dwillis/congress-press/blob/main/LICENSE"}