A Bounty Of $5,000 To Name Troll Tracker

The successful strategy of Chicago plaintiffs firm Niro, Scavone, Haller & Niroof representing patent-holding companies with strong infringement claims on a contingency basishas spawned many imitators. The term “patent troll” was famously coined in reference to firm cofounder Ray Niro. But in the past few months the firm has been involved in such controversial situations that a question arises: Is this how a patent plaintiffs firm acts in middle age?

The first curious incident occurred this summer. Niro had won a $12.1 million jury verdict for Philip Jackson in April 2003 against Glenayre Electronics, Inc., but the court later reduced the award to $2.65 million and prevented Jackson from pursuing further infringement claims in the case. When his appeal of the court’s decision failed, Jackson sued Niro for malpractice. In August, Niro turned around and challenged Jackson’s malpractice suit by claiming the patent in question was invalid, a novel argument considering Niro had successfully enforced it. The case settled in late September for an undisclosed amount.