A federal judge struck a potentially lethal blow against so-called “patent trolls” last month after slapping a $500,000 bill on the troll’s lawyers and ruling that they, not their client, are responsible for paying it. Now, experts are saying the decision could have significant repercussions for the technology industry as it may make legal firms think twice before taking on iffy patent litigation lawsuits.

First, a little background on the case: The ruling was made in relation to Gust vs. Alphacap Ventures and Richard Juarez, which finally concluded last month with U.S. District Court Judge Denise Cote ruling in favor of the defendant Gust.

Gust, an Internet crowdfunding startup, was one of 10 companies including Indiegogo, AngelList, GoFundMe, RealtyMogul and others that were slapped with a lawsuit by Alphacap, which describes itself as an entity that offers “strategic, operations, and financial advisory services in the United States.” In the lawsuit, AlphaCap claimed ownership of a patent for “online equity financing” and demanded that the defendants pay it royalties. The other nine defendants all decided to settle out of court and skip a prolonged legal battle, leaving Gust to go to war by itself.

Unfortunately for AlphaCap, the case was impacted by a Supreme Court ruling in an earlier case, Alice Corp. LLC  v. CLS Bank International, which ruled that taking an otherwise unpatentable idea and adding the concept of “doing it on a computer” did not make it a patent-eligible invention.

Judge Cote found in her ruling that AlphaCap sued Gust seven months after the Alice ruling, with full knowledge that the case was frivolous and, if ever taken to trial, was not winnable.

Computerworld reported Tuesday that Judge Cotes’ decision to make the lawyers pay could be a “game-changer” for patent litigation, as the general business model is that lawyers take on a contingency fee, a percentage of the money extracted from victims, as opposed to charging hourly fees. However, the ruling makes it much more likely that lawyers would reject the contingency fee and instead demand an upfront hourly fee. Many patent trolls may be unwilling or unable to do that, which would mean they forgo many of their more tenuous lawsuits. If so, that could mean the entire patent troll model begins to crumble, as the vast majority of such cases are tenuous at best.

“It is highly, highly, highly unusual for counsel to be held directly responsible for these fees,” Lori Smith, an attorney with the White and Williams law firm that represented Gust, told Computerworld. “I think it is going to have a significant chilling effect on patent troll litigation. You’re going to see law firms thinking twice before they take on clearly questionable patent litigation.”

Image credit: PublicDomainPictures via pixabay