Patent Troll Leigh Rothschild vs. Valve

by Stephan Kinsella on February 8, 2026

Gemini summary from the Asmongold video:

This video discusses the ongoing legal battle between Valve and Lee Rothschild, a notorious patent troll. Valve is taking a stand against Rothschild’s long history of filing numerous patent lawsuits against various companies (0:32).

Here’s a breakdown of the situation:

The Agreement (2:05): In 2016, Valve and Rothschild entered a global settlement and license agreement (GSLA). Valve paid Rothschild a large sum of money for a perpetual, royalty-free, worldwide license to his patent portfolio. In return, Rothschild promised not to sue Valve or its affiliates for infringement ever again.
Breach of Contract (2:58): In 2022, Rothschild’s company, Display Technologies, sued Valve for patent infringement on a patent that was already covered by the 2016 GSLA. A federal judge ruled that Rothschild breached his contract, and Valve is now seeking millions in damages.
The 2023 Incident (6:19): In June 2023, Rothschild’s lawyers sent another letter to Valve, threatening to sue them over a different patent (the “221 patent”). Rothschild’s team claimed this was a genuine mistake, stating they forgot the patent was covered by the GSLA. The judge did not grant summary judgment on this, leaving it to be decided in a jury trial.
Washington Patent Troll Protection Act (8:26): Rothschild’s team attempted to dismiss Valve’s claims under this act, arguing that only the attorney general could sue under it, not a private company. However, the judge ruled that Valve does have the right to sue, stating that patent trolling is a matter of “vital public interest” (9:05). This opens the door for Valve to argue that Rothschild’s business model is an unfair or deceptive act, potentially leading to triple damages (10:16).
Personal Liability (10:29): Valve is suing Lee Rothschild personally, arguing that his companies are merely “alter egos” for himself. If Valve succeeds, Rothschild could be held personally responsible, bypassing the shell game strategy patent trolls often use (10:32).
Suing the Lawyers (13:15): Valve is also going after Rothschild’s lawyers, Samuel Mor and Mor Legal PLLC, arguing they were active participants in a bad-faith scheme. The judge has allowed these claims to move forward, meaning the lawyers could also be liable for damages (15:11).

The video concludes by highlighting that this case is a massive win for Valve and the tech community (16:43), potentially setting a precedent that could significantly impact patent trolls in the future (15:54).

***

Washington State patent troll prevention act: Grok summary:

The Washington State Patent Troll Prevention Act (RCW 19.350), enacted in 2015, is officially titled “Patent Infringement—Bad Faith Assertions.” It aims to protect Washington’s economy from abusive patent litigation by prohibiting bad faith assertions of patent infringement, particularly targeting “patent trolls” (non-practicing entities that assert patents primarily to extract settlements rather than to innovate or produce goods).

Key Provisions

Prohibition: A person or entity may not make assertions of patent infringement in bad faith. This includes sending demand letters, threatening litigation, or making claims (outside of actual lawsuits) alleging infringement or demanding licenses to avoid suits.
Bad Faith Indicators (non-exclusive factors a court may consider as evidence of bad faith):
- The assertion lacks a reasonable basis (e.g., no specific infringement details, vague claims, or demands without identifying the patent claims infringed).
- The asserting party has no intent or ability to enforce the patent (e.g., not producing products or services related to it).
- The demand seeks compensation disproportionate to the infringement or without sufficient analysis.
- Other factors like prior knowledge of invalidity, failure to conduct reasonable investigation, or patterns of abusive demands.
Good Faith Indicators (evidence against bad faith):
- The assertion includes detailed infringement analysis, claim charts, or identification of specific products/practices.
- The patent is presumed valid (though rebuttable).
- The asserting party has engaged in reasonable pre-assertion investigation.
Exemptions/Safe Harbors: Legitimate patent enforcement is protected; the law explicitly avoids interfering with federal patent law or genuine enforcement actions. Claims made in actual litigation are excluded from the definition of “assertion.”
Enforcement: Violations are treated as unfair or deceptive acts under Washington’s Consumer Protection Act (RCW 19.86). The Attorney General can bring actions (including parens patriae on behalf of residents), seeking injunctions, civil penalties, restitution, and attorney fees. Private parties may also have remedies via the CPA in some interpretations.

The act seeks to deter meritless demand letters that coerce small businesses into settlements due to high litigation costs, without chilling legitimate patent rights.

Related Federal Court Ruling

In State of Washington v. Landmark Technology A, LLC (U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington), a 2022 decision (October 28, 2022, by Judge Ricardo Martinez) rejected a patent assertion entity’s challenge to the law. The court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss, ruling that RCW 19.350 does not violate the First Amendment. The judge stated that the defendant provided “no authority” or evidence showing constitutional protection for “bad faith assertions of patent infringement.” This was a preliminary ruling allowing the state’s enforcement action (filed by AG Bob Ferguson against a company accused of sending predatory demand letters) to proceed. The law has been upheld in this context as targeting unprotected abusive conduct rather than protected speech.