WSJ Op-Ed Pleas for Anti-Troll Measures After 'Patent Bounty' Case
The Risk of Overcorrection in the Patent System
In any shared office environment, there is a classic collective action problem: the office sink. When one person leaves dirty coffee mugs soaking overnight, it creates a nuisance for everyone else. However, the solution to a few dirty cups is to address the behavior of the individual, not to establish a new “no more mugs” rule. In this scenario—in case it wasn’t obvious—the mugs are patents.
This dynamic effectively mirrors a current debate over U.S. patent policy. A perceivably legitimate grievance regarding abusive litigation strategies is being leveraged to advocate for the dismantling of essential enforcement mechanisms.
Dr. Danielle Zanzalari recently published an op-ed, “Stop the Anticompetitive Patent Trolls,” in the Wall Street Journal regarding the legal warfare between Realtek and MediaTek. While she raises a valid concern about corporate sabotage, the framing of the argument relies heavily on the “patent troll” narrative—a rhetorical device that often serves as a Trojan horse for weakening intellectual property rights across the board.
For legal professionals and IP owners, it is critical to distinguish between the specific abuse alleged in this case and the broader, more dangerous policy prescriptions that often follow such accusations.
The Realtek Case: Antitrust, Not Just “Trolling”
In her November 2025 piece for the WSJ, Dr. Zanzalari outlines a disturbing scenario. She writes, “In its 2023 complaint, the semiconductor company Realtek accuses its competitor MediaTek of paying the company Future Link Systems a $1 million bounty to act as a patent troll.”
If these allegations are true, they describe a dominant market leader (MediaTek appears to hold 70% of the TV chip market) hiring a mercenary to drain a smaller rival’s resources. As Zanzalari correctly notes, “If unchecked, this could be the start of an anti-competitive arms race.”
This is an antitrust issue, pure and simple. It is an established firm allegedly erecting barriers to entry. However, by labeling this primarily as a “patent troll” problem, the narrative risks alienating the very pro-innovation community that should be leading the charge against such tactics.
Legitimate inventors often tune out when they see the “T-word,” assuming it is yet another attack on their ability to enforce rights.
The pro-patent community cannot afford to tune out, because the “troll” label is being used to justify structural changes that go far beyond punishing bad actors in highly specific situaitons.
The Broader Agenda: Attacks on the ITC
To understand the risk of overcorrection, one must look at Dr. Zanzalari’s broader body of work. The villain in her narratives shifts, but the proposed solution—weakening patent enforcement—remains constant.
In August 2024, Dr. Zanzalari wrote an opinion piece for The Hill titled “How patent trolls hurt the American economy,” which provides a stark contrast to her defense of Realtek. Here, the sympathetic “victims” were not scrappy competitors, but massive implementers like Samsung, Cisco, and T-Mobile.
In this piece, she attacks the venues themselves, criticizing the Eastern District of Texas and arguing that patent assertion entities have “manipulated” the International Trade Commission (ITC) to “threaten innovative technology companies with draconian product bans.”
Dr. Zanzalari bolsters this pro-Big Tech stance with populist rhetoric, warning that patent enforcement raises costs for “smartphone-only” internet users—specifically citing Hispanic communities—thereby framing the protection of intellectual property as an attack on vulnerable consumers rather than a defense of innovation.
Similarly, in a September 2025 piece for The Washington Times, “Fix the ITC patent troll problem before taxing patents,” Dr. Zanzalari explicitly advocated for the Advancing America’s Interests Act (AAIA).
In the 2025 op-ed, Dr. Zanzalari employs a strategic pivot, contrasting the AAIA against a rumored “patent tax” being considered by the Trump administration. She frames the AAIA—which would severely limit the ITC’s power to issue exclusion orders—as the “reasonable” solution to avoid a tax that would punish all inventors.
This rhetorical sleight of hand allows her to champion a bill that dismantles the only injunctive relief available to many patent owners, presenting it as a necessary rescue mission for the patent system itself.
Without the pattern of other op-eds, one might think that the term “patent troll” slipped into the WSJ op-ed accidentally and that righting the wrongs in the specific case were paramount for Dr. Zanzalari. In view of her other work, an anti-patent pattern emerges.
Some IP owners have called this brand of advocacy “efficient infringement,” as the presumed goal of weakening the patent system would allow dominant market players to exploit the inventions of smaller competitors with impunity, treating potential legal damages as merely a cost of doing business rather than a deterrent.
Police the Ecosystem, Don’t Burn It Down
The danger here is evident. If the pro-patent community remains silent because they are defensive about the “troll” label, they cede the moral high ground.
If the pro-patent advocates do not condemn the alleged weaponization of litigation by dominant firms, they risk inviting sweeping patent reforms that will hurt the garage inventor far more than they hurt the corporate giant.
Stakeholders within the patent system leave the door open for policymakers to “remove the sink” (weaken the ITC and injunctive relief) just to deal with a few “dirty cups” (abusive litigants).
The pro-innovation community should police its own ecosystem. It can support strong property rights while simultaneously demanding that antitrust authorities punish those who treat the court system as a (potential) paid assassin.
The solution to the “dirty mug” problem is to hold the offender accountable. It is not to dismantle the kitchen sink.
Disclaimer: This is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal or financial advice. To the extent there are any opinions in this article, they are the author’s alone and do not represent the beliefs of his firm or clients. The strategies expressed are purely speculation based on publicly available information. The information expressed is subject to change at any time and should be checked for completeness, accuracy and current applicability. For advice, consult a suitably licensed attorney and/or patent professional.