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 2026

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

The US decision marks a rare grant of a request under the Uniform Fraudulent Transfer Act in a patent case
Stobbs has applied to strike out a contempt of court application filed against the firm and two of its lawyers
With trademark volumes surging, trademark teams need to think beyond traditional clearance searches, towards a continuous, intelligence-led workflow, says Meghan Medeiros of Corsearch
Brazilian in-house counsel say law firms’ technology investments have not translated into tangible benefits, meaning tech use is a minor factor when selecting advisers
A lack of comfort among some salaried partners shows why law firms must actively foster inclusion, not merely focus on diversity mandates
Arrival of Laura Alonso, alongside a team of 11, will bring ‘significant value’ to ECIJA clients, says CEO
In the first of a two-part article, lawyers at Spruson & Ferguson and Marshall Gerstein provide an overview of China’s system for appealing against patent invalidation decisions
Lawyers and corporate leaders at INTA’s Business of M&A conference in New York discussed how cross-practice collaboration and early in-house involvement can help deals
Lily Li, partner at Morrison Foerster, shares how her litigation team helped secure victory at the ITC in a patent infringement case
Top talking points also included news of an appellate ruling concerning ‘Pisco’ and Indian drugmakers gearing up to launch generic versions of Ozempic as Novo Nordisk’s patent expires
Gift this article