Supreme Court makes it harder to be patent predator

Glenn Fleishman tells BoingBoing,

The Supreme Court ruled earlier this week that injunctions shouldn't be rubberstamped for patent cases. They specifically singled out business-method patents that are litigated by those who have no stake in producing the product or offering the service; i.e., patent trolls. (There are some legitimate non-business-method patents pursued in ths manner. They don't get much press beyond the variable windshield-wiper case that has been underway for 50 years in various venues and appeals.)

What this means is that patent trolls will be less likely to hold their victims for ransom through injunction unless the patentholder can demonstrate that they meet a four-part test, already in use for other injunctions involving equity, which is hard for a non-producer to meet. Even if a patentholder wins at trial, the defendent could file an appeal and still have injunctions in abeyence.

The Supreme Court's majority opinion written by Clarence Thomas describes the four-part test. (It's in PDF form from the link.) In essence, a plaintiff has to show irreparable harm, that mere money or other remedies when at trial aren't enough, that there is an imbalance in hardships against the plaintiff, and that a permanent injunction wouldn't harm the public interest. (IANAL.)

I wrote one of Amazon.com's patents (but did not invent it), and I've followed the business-model debate for years. I believe it is possible this decision will decimate the market for patent-trolling because it will be much less likely to obtain a settlement beforehand to avoid an injunction that would disrupt the defendant's business.

Link to ruling.