GLEAM LAW CLIENT ALERT

Surviving State “Patent Troll” Enforcement: Lessons from the Landmark Consent Decree

February 2026

Your Patent Enforcement Program Just Got More Complicated

State attorneys general are increasingly targeting patent assertion entities under “patent troll prevention” statutes and consumer protection laws. Washington, Vermont, Nebraska, and other states have enacted legislation creating new regulatory exposure for NPEs sending demand letters or filing patent infringement claims.

The risk is real: Washington State’s first Patent Troll Prevention Act enforcement case against Landmark Technology A LLC involved allegations of bad-faith assertions to nearly 1,200 small businesses, with potential exposure exceeding $2.9 million in penalties, restitution, and attorneys’ fees.

What Happened in Landmark

Gleam Law represented Landmark Technology A LLC through over four years of federal litigation, securing a negotiated consent decree with the State that:

  • Resolved all claims with no finding of liability and no trial on the merits
  • Preserved Landmark’s ability to continue operations under clear, defined parameters
  • Left critical constitutional questions open for future cases—including Noerr-Pennington immunity scope, “sham” exception standards, and federal preemption boundaries

The Unresolved Legal Questions That Matter to Your Business

Because the case settled before trial, three critical questions remain unanswered:

  1. Noerr-Pennington Immunity: How broadly does First Amendment petitioning protection cover patent demand letters and enforcement campaigns?
  2. “Sham” Exception Standard: What legal test governs when state consumer protection laws can regulate patent assertions as pretextual or bad-faith?
  3. Federal Preemption: Where is the line between permissible state consumer protection and impermissible interference with federal patent rights?

These open questions create strategic opportunities for sophisticated NPEs to structure campaigns and defenses that preserve constitutional arguments rather than inadvertently foreclosing them.

Practical Guardrails for NPEs

Based on the Landmark experience and emerging state enforcement patterns, NPEs should consider:

Demand Letter Practices

  • Provide specific infringement contentions with technical detail, matching each state’s patent troll act requirements
  • Avoid boilerplate assertions targeting broad categories of businesses
  • Document good-faith bases for infringement allegations
  • Maintain records of pre-assertion investigation and analysis
  • Implement communication plans designed to maintain attorney/client and work product privilege

Geographic Risk Assessment

  • Map exposure across states with active patent troll prevention acts and states with no statute of limitation on consumer protection act cases brought by the State
  • Monitor AG enforcement priorities and public statements
  • Consider state-specific modifications to assertion programs

AG Engagement Strategy

  • Develop rapid-response protocols for regulatory inquiries
  • Preserve privilege and work product protections in AG communications
  • Understand when early engagement can prevent formal enforcement

Consent Decree Negotiation

  • Evaluate settlement terms against litigation risk and defense costs
  • Structure suspended judgments to minimize business disruption
  • Preserve ability to operate within clear, manageable parameters

Gleam Law’s NPE State AG Defense Practice

We offer comprehensive services for NPEs and patent monetization entities:

Pre-Litigation Advisory

  • Patent demand letter and assertion practice review
  • Multi-state compliance risk assessment
  • Demand letter redesign to reduce “bad faith” indicators
  • Early-stage AG engagement and investigation response

Litigation Defense

  • Constitutional challenge strategy (First Amendment, federal preemption)
  • Noerr-Pennington immunity analysis and advocacy
  • Motion practice and trial representation
  • Consent decree negotiation with AGs and private plaintiffs

Strategic Communications

  • Messaging and media strategy for regulatory disputes
  • Reputation management and stakeholder communications
  • Crisis response for adverse coverage or enforcement actions

Why This Matters Now

The Landmark case is unlikely to be the last word on state patent troll enforcement. Other states are watching Washington’s model, and private companies are increasingly invoking state patent troll prevention acts in litigation. NPEs operating without attention to this regulatory landscape face substantial and growing risk.

At the same time, the unresolved nature of key legal questions means that well-advised NPEs can continue to operate effectively while preserving strong legal defenses if challenged.

Next Steps

If your NPE has received an AG inquiry, faces potential state enforcement action, or wants to audit demand letter practices for regulatory exposure, contact Gleam Law for a confidential consultation.