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

News of InterDigital suing Amazon in the US and CMS IndusLaw challenging Indian rules on foreign firms were also among the top talking points
IP lawyers at three firms reflect on how courts across Australia have reacted to AI use in litigation, and explain why they support measured use of the technology
AJ Park’s owner, IPH, announced earlier this week that Steve Mitchell will take the reins of the New Zealand-based firm in January
Chris Adamson and Milli Bouri of Adamson & Partners join us to discuss IP market trends and what law firm and in-house clients are looking for
Noemi Parrotta, chair of the European subcommittee within INTA's International Amicus Committee, explains why the General Court’s decision in the Iceland case could make it impossible to protect country names as trademarks
Inès Garlantezec, who became principal of the firm’s Luxembourg office earlier this year, discusses what's been keeping her busy, including settling a long-running case
In the sixth episode of a podcast series celebrating the tenth anniversary of IP Inclusive, we discuss IP Futures, a network for early-career stage IP professionals
Rachel Cohen has reunited with her former colleagues to strengthen Weil’s IP litigation and strategy work
McKool Smith’s Jennifer Truelove explains how a joint effort between her firm and Irell & Manella secured a win for their client against Samsung
Tilleke & Gibbins topped the leaderboard with four awards across the region, while Anand & Anand and Kim & Chang emerged as outstanding domestic firms
Gift this article