Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 03 FEBRUARY 2016

Are The Patent Trolls Vulnerable To Antitrust Claims?

BakerHostetler
BakerHostetler
Contributor
BakerHostetler

BakerHostetler

Recognized as an innovator and one of the top firms for client service, BakerHostetler helps...

View firm profile
Explore more from BakerHostetler

In Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Financial Corp., Intellectual Ventures I brought a patent infringement suit in the United States District Court of Maryland alleging that Capital One infringed four patents in its portfolio.

United StatesAntitrust/Competition Law

We previously wrote about the nascent efforts of legislators, regulators, and representatives of technology-dependent industries to use the antitrust laws, such as Section 2 of the Sherman Act or Section 7 of the Clayton Act, to rein in perceived abuses by patent aggregation entities ("PAEs"), more commonly known as patent trolls. One potential difficulty in bringing PAEs' actions under the antitrust laws is that their activities do not fit neatly into any traditional definition of a relevant product market. The United States District Court of Maryland, however, recently permitted antitrust counterclaims against a PAE to proceed to discovery, even though the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia previously dismissed similar counterclaims involving the same parties based on a failure to allege a proper relevant product market.1

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from