- Purchases a patent, often from a bankrupt firm, and then sues another company by claiming that one of its products infringes on the purchased patent;
- Enforces patents against purported infringers without itself intending to manufacture the patented product or supply the patented service;
- Enforces patents but has no manufacturing or research base; or
- Focuses its efforts solely on enforcing patent rights.
- Asserts patent infringement claims against non-copiers or against a large industry that is composed of non-copiers
I think in this case the fifth definition applies?
Isn't this what the case will determine? If that is the situation then nobody really knows if there is infringement until the courts decide. They have also only filed against one company right now.
I don't agree with the action, but I don't think they even remotely qualify as a patent troll.
If you stretch the fifth definition to include Apple, then you would brand any company trying to enforce any patent against anybody a patent troll.