It's probably more good news then bad. As I read it, it refers to being compensated for the legal costs from being sued by a "patent troll" who uses the cost of litigation for the defendent as the primary method of winning an award through a settlement. Or simply, "pay me a settlement because it will cost you less then fighting me in court". It's now apparently more likely a defendent can sue for, and recover, those costs of fighting.
This was likely the motivation for Google to sue MAXD for recovery of their legal costs after the California case was dismissed; expecting they could present MAXD as a patent troll that had tried to extort them (so to speak.)
However, MAXD is not a patent "troll". The method behind being a troll is to find someone/something with a technology/patent similar to another patent, and sue claiming the similar technology was stolen. The similarity of technologies can allow enough doubt in a court to sustain a long and expensive litigation, which the troll then uses to negotiate a settlement from the defendent, who is forced to settle to save money overall (settling costing less then fighting in court.)
The lawsuits MAXD has against Google are not trolling. They involve specific interaction between Google and the technology inventors, specific written agreements as part of that interaction, and pre-existing patents the inventors held, which Google later used in the application of Google patents of the same technologies. In short, Google stole the specific technologies, and are being called into accountability for the theft. Google is not being sued by MAXD because one of Google's patented designs is similar to another patent holders technology. The evidence strongly supports Google's guilt in this accusation.
It appears Google may have somehow increased their risk by asking for legal fees for being "trolled", when in fact they are being rightfully sued for theft. Google may also have added risk by rushing into the demand for recovery of legal fees while the case dismissal itself is being revealed to have been in error (more acurately a judge's improper decision favoring Google's legal team) in the appeal to reverse the dismissal.
The most encouraging thing I see in the article is that MAXD's legal team is quoted in it, which would indicate they are well versed in these new court practice implications, and prepared to defend against them.
Thanks for posting the article; good info for sure.
