Vermont passes controversial new law targeting patent trolls

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Vermont passes controversial new law targeting patent trolls

Vermont enacted a new law on Wednesday, believed to be the first of its kind in the US, in an effort to crack down on so-called patent trolls

The legislation, known as Bad Faith Assertions of Patent Infringements, was signed into law by Vermont Governor Peter Shumlin. It is unclear whether states have the authority to regulate patent activity, due to federal preemption doctrines.

The law allows parties who are threatened by trolls to sue for damages, even if the patent owner has filed no lawsuit against them.

It also enables the state’s Attorney General to pursue civil enforcement against parties believed to be asserting patents in bad faith.

In addition, the patent owner can be required to post a bond of up to $250,000 under the new law, to cover any attorneys’ fees a court may later award to an alleged infringer. The court can deny the bond if the defendant lacks “available assets” equivalent to the amount of the bond.

Rather than define bad faith assertions, the law lists factors to help judges separate legitimate claims from illegitimate ones.

Under the new law, factors that might lead a court to conclude that a claim is illegitimate would include:

  • Not identifying the patents in question, who owns the patent, and to precisely how the patent has been infringed;

  • Demanding an unreasonable amount of money, and/or demanding payment in an unreasonably short amount of time;

  • Making “deceptive” or “meritless” claims.

Factors that might lead a court to conclude that a claim is legitimate include:

  • The claim being made by the original inventor, an educational institution or someone who has commercialised the invention;

  • Having demonstrated “good faith business practices” in previous efforts to enforce the patent, or one that is “substantially similar”

  • Previous success in enforcing the patent through litigation.

The law also grants courts leeway to consider any other factors they believe to be relevant.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Attorneys explain why there are early signs that the US Supreme Court could rule in favour of ISP Cox in a copyright dispute
A swathe of UPC-related hires suggests firms are taking the forum seriously, as questions over the transitional stage begin
A win for Nintendo in China and King & Spalding hiring a prominent patent litigator were also among the top talking points
Rebecca Newman at Addleshaw Goddard, who live-reported on the seminal dispute, unpicks the trials and tribulations of the case and considers its impact
Attorneys predict how Lululemon’s trade dress and design patent suit against Costco could play out
Lawyers at Linklaters analyse some of the key UPC trends so far, and look ahead to life beyond the transition period
David Rodrigues, who previously worked at an IP boutique, said he may become more involved in transactional work at his new firm
Indian smartphone maker Lava must pay $2.3 million as a security deposit for past sales, as its dispute with Dolby over audio coding SEPs plays out
Powell Gilbert’s opening in Düsseldorf, complete with a new partner hire, continues this summer’s trend of UPC-related lateral movement
IP leaders at Brandsmiths and Bird & Bird, who were on opposing sides at the UK Supreme Court in Iconix v Dream Pairs, unpick the landmark case and its ramifications
Gift this article