Valve’s ‘Patent Troll’ Verdict Points to Laws, Licenses as Tools

A recent jury verdict in the Western District of Washington, finding inventor Leigh Rothschild and his affiliates liable under the state’s Patent Troll Prevention Act and Consumer Protection Act, has drawn national attention as one of the first successful cases brought under a state antitroll statute. The dispute centered on infringement claims asserted against Valve Corp., despite Valve already holding a license to the patents at issue. 

While the damages were modest, practitioners say the case is a meaningful reminder that strong licensing terms can provide critical leverage against nuisance litigation. The verdict reinforces that companies must understand the full scope of their existing licenses, including continuations and related patents, before asserting or responding to infringement claims. 

Finnegan partner Lionel Lavenue emphasized that the case illustrates why careful license drafting is essential for longterm protection. He noted that he works to position clients to negotiate agreements that minimize future exposure by broadening the scope of covered patents.  He explained, “One of your most horrific moments is to know that after you resolved the case, the same plaintiff has the ability to come back and sue you again in the future.” 

Lionel added that sometimes the risk cannot be fully eliminated, depending on the patents asserted and the structure of the negotiation: “Sometimes you can’t avoid that because you’re just dealing with the patents that are asserted, and not all the patents that they assert against you in the future.” 

Read Valve’s ‘Patent Troll’ Verdict Points to Laws, Licenses as Tools