Currently, the most popular Senate bill — Sen. Leahy's Patent Transparency and Improvements Act — touches upon a few major reforms, but by no means goes far enough: transparency in ownership, cracking down on bad
faith demand letters, and a stay on end - user cases if a manufacturer intervenes.
Second, to make the perception of risk real, the AG's office should invest the necessary resources in investigating and, where appropriate, prosecuting bad
faith demand letters served on Vermont businesses and nonprofits.
Currently, it features reforms on patent ownership transparency, a customer stay, and bad -
faith demand letters.
The first benefit is that the bill exists — it puts legislation on the books that makes bad
faith demand letters a violation of state consumer protection law and its mere existence makes the playing field more complex and more risky for unscrupulous entities looking to make a quick buck by threatening businesses (and in some cases nonprofits) with expensive litigation.
«Through the mass mailing of bad
faith demand letters, some bad actors have abused an otherwise legitimate patent enforcement practice for the purpose of extracting payment from small «mom and pop» businesses and other groups of people generally unfamiliar with the patent system,» according to the letter.
Not exact matches
At 1 p.m., Assemblyman Andrew Hevesi, a coalition of
faith leaders, elected officials and advocates for the homeless will deliver 25,000
letters from people across New York
demanding Cuomo keep his promise to fund thousands of units of supportive housing for the homeless, 3rd floor, stat Capitol, Albany.
Why wouldn't people assume that money
demanded by a lawyer in a
letter is money that the lawyer's client has some good
faith basis for
demanding?
As I have written in a recent article on the topic of shoplifting
demand letters, when lawyers send
letters that mislead the public as to their legal obligations, there is a strong case that these lawyers are breaching rules of professional misconduct by, among other things, knowingly assisting their clients in dishonest conduct and violating their obligations to act in good
faith and practice law with integrity.
«Under the circumstances, the facts that: (1) the
demand letter was sent only to media outlets which had not yet run the story but had indicated an intention to do so; and (2) Cosby never sued any media outlet which ran the story, give rise to an inference that the
demand letter was not sent in connection with litigation contemplated in good
faith and under serious consideration.
However, the present bill would be stronger, and more closely comport with federal law, if these criteria, individually, were required findings of the court, not just potential basis for determining that the
demand letter was served in bad
faith.
It could be strengthened further if the statute required the AG's office to investigate any complaints of bad
faith patent
demand letters served on Vermont businesses.
Of course, seeking state solutions to a problem that is inherently a federal issue is always tricky because state laws in this area may be a) preempted by the broad scope of federal patent law and b) unconstitutional based on the general rule that a person has a right to redress of grievances before the courts, which in this case, includes the right to send
demand letters or other notices of possible ensuing litigation so long as those
letters are not sent in «bad
faith.»
At its heart, the complaint alleges that the scanner troll is sending these
demand letters in bad
faith.