Litigation costs in proceedings against patent troll: reasonable or not?

Sisvel is conducting numerous proceedings on patents of which it owns or manages the licensing portfolio. Some people call it Europe's biggest "patent troll." A what? Yes it is a peculiar word, wikipedia explains where it comes from:

"Peter Detkin, a lawyer at Intel, coined the term in the 1990s. He faced such ridiculous demands from one patent lawyer that he called him "patent extortionist." He was sued for libel and sunned for a better designation. His little four-year-old daughter liked to play with troll-dolls. One night he was watching her and realized that the classic troll story fit this kind of lawyer perfectly: The Troll of the Three Goats who lies under a bridge he didn't build and demands payment from anyone who passes by. Hence the name patent troll."

Sisvel does not produce its own products but litigates all the more. In the Netherlands various proceedings have been conducted in the field of wireless communication, digital video and screen technology and audio and video (de)coding.

In a number of joined cases that Sisvel had lost on the merits (the patent it had invoked had been annulled in an earlier interlocutory judgment), a recent final judgment dealt only with the level of the litigation costs order. High stakes, both sides had pulled out all the stops, so high costs. The court finds that almost all costs of the opposing parties must be awarded: the strength of the arguments is no reason to moderate. Only the costs of documents that were not admitted in the proceedings are mitigated.

Incidentally, this case would turn out differently today because by now the indicative rates also limit the amount of costs to be awarded in patent cases.

Moïra Truijens