Client Alerts & Insights
House Bill 194: Curbing Baseless Patent Infringement Claims
May 15, 2015
Authored By:
House Bill 194 was introduced on May 11, 2015, by primary sponsor Representative Kristina Roegner (R), Ohio House District 37. As introduced, the new bill will prohibit persons from engaging in the widespread sending of bad faith, objectively baseless communications of patent infringement and will authorize the Attorney General to investigate and institute a civil action if the Attorney General believes a person has made such assertions of patent infringement. The Attorney General may seek injunctive relief to restrain or prevent continued bad faith or baseless assertions of patent infringement.
Communications made in bad faith include content that is likely to materially mislead a reasonable recipient because the content fails to identify:
- the person asserting the patent claim;
- the patent(s) alleged to have been infringed; and
- at least one product, service, or technology that is alleged to infringe the patent(s).
Also included are communications that falsely state that litigation has been instituted against the intended recipient or that falsely threaten that administrative or judicial relief will be sought if compensation is not paid or the infringement is not resolved.
Written communications will be considered objectively baseless if the assertions lack a reasonable basis in fact or law due to any of the following:
- the person asserting the patent is not the patent owner, licensee, or the representative of the patent owner or licensee;
- the communication seeks compensation for assertion of claims of infringement of a patent held to be invalid or unenforceable; or
- the communication seeks compensation for alleged infringing activities undertaken after expiration of the patent.
Legitimate patent rights owners may still advise others of their ownership or right of license enforcement, communicate to others that the patent is available for license or sale, notify others of the infringement of the patent, and seek compensation on past or present infringement or for a license to the patent.
Link to House Bill 194: https://www.legislature.ohio.gov/legislation/legislation-summary?id=GA131-HB-194
For more information please contact attorney Michael D. Stovsky, paralegal Duncan H. Poirier or a member of Benesch’s Innovations, Information Technology & Intellectual Property (3iP) Practice Group.
Michael D. Stovsky | mstovsky@beneschlaw.com | 216.363.4626
Duncan H. Poirier | dpoirier@beneschlaw.com | 216.363.4677
Latest News
USPS Highway Contract Route Carrier Legal Issues for Closing Out 2026
As we approach the end of 2026, Highway Contract Route (“HCR”) carriers and brokers operating in the USPS surface transportation …
A Brave New World: Trying Causation in PFAS Cases Under CERCLA
The D.C. Circuit recently held that the EPA reasonably classified PFOA and PFOS as hazardous substances under CERCLA, clearing the way for additional cleanup and cost-recovery claims involving PFAS contamination.
Anti-SLAPP Laws on the Rise: Key Developments Since 2025
States across the country are expanding anti-SLAPP protections, with nine states enacting or strengthening laws since 2025. Most have adopted the Uniform Public Expression Protection Act (UPEPA), giving defendants new tools to seek early dismissal of lawsuits.
AI-Driven Personalized Pricing: The FTC’s New Enforcement Posture and the Broader Legal Landscape
Key Takeaways By now, we all know that artificial intelligence is a transformative tool for business. Companies are already using …