SEATTLE, WA, February 18, 2026: Gleam Law, a boutique litigation and intellectual property firm, represented Landmark Technology A, LLC through more than four years of complex federal litigation that resulted in a negotiated consent decree resolving the first enforcement action brought by the Washington State Attorney General under the state’s Patent Troll Prevention Act.
The case, Washington v. Landmark Technology A, LLC (W.D. Wash., Case No. 2:21-cv-00728), involved allegations that Landmark Technology A, LLC sent nearly 1,200 demand letters to small businesses asserting infringement of e-commerce patents. The state claimed the letters violated Washington’s Consumer Protection Act and Patent Troll Prevention Act by constituting bad-faith patent assertions. The case was later amended to include conduct involving Landmark Technology, LLC, a company headed by the inventor of the patents-at-issue.
Resolution Without Merits Adjudication
Under the January 2026 consent decree, Landmark agreed to pay $95,000 and refrain from asserting two specific patents in Washington, while accepting future conduct restrictions. Critically, the decree includes a suspended judgment of approximately $2.9 million that would only be triggered by future violations or bankruptcy.
“This resolution provides a clear path forward for our clients while highlighting the complex legal landscape patent owners and their employees must navigate,” said Justin Walsh, attorney at Gleam Law. “Landmark made no admission of liability, and none of the state’s allegations were proven at trial or otherwise adjudicated on the merits.”
Unresolved Constitutional Questions Create Precedent Gap
Because the case settled through a consent decree rather than proceeding to trial, the court did not issue final rulings on several significant constitutional and federal preemption questions that were at the heart of the litigation:
Noerr-Pennington immunity scope: Whether and to what extent patent demand letters and enforcement campaigns are protected petitioning activity under the First Amendment;
“Sham” exception standard: What legal test applies when state consumer protection laws attempt to regulate allegedly pretextual patent assertions; and
Federal preemption boundaries: How far state patent troll prevention and consumer protection statutes can regulate patent assertion activity before conflicting with federal patent law.
“The court did not reach a decision on the merits regarding the standard for determining the ‘sham’ exception to Noerr-Pennington immunity,” Walsh noted. “This and other important issues remain open and evolving questions of law that will likely be shaped by future litigation at the intersection of intellectual property and state enforcement.”
Implications for Patent Owners and NPEs
The Landmark consent decree represents one of the earliest resolutions of a modern state AG patent troll enforcement action. The outcome resulted in a management settlement that avoided a catastrophic judgments while preserving the ability to operate within defined parameters.
Gleam Law offers strategic defense and compliance advisory services to non-practicing entities (NPEs) and patent owners facing or anticipating state attorney general enforcement actions under patent troll prevention statutes.
For media inquiries or to arrange an interview with Justin Walsh regarding state patent troll enforcement trends and the Landmark case, contact [email protected] or (206) 693-2900. To learn more about surviving state patent troll enforcement, read our latest client alert.
About Gleam Law:
Gleam Law is a boutique law firm specializing in complex litigation, intellectual property, and regulatory matters. The firm provides strategic counsel at the intersection of intellectual property, technology, and consumer protection law, advising clients on risk management and compliance in high-stakes environments.
