The court denied defendant's motion to strike the phrase, "patent troll" from plaintiff's pleadings despite defendant's argument that "'[d]escribing the opposing party as a 'troll' – an ugly, mythical cave-dwelling being – is not in keeping with the dignity of the Court, and has no relationship to the causes of action raised in the Complaint.'. . . Plaintiff argues that it merely used the term 'patent troll' because it is relevant to Plaintiff's contention that Defendant has alleged infringement in bad faith, which could be grounds for Rule 11 sanctions and attorney fees. Because 'patent troll' is a term commonly used and understood in patent litigation and is not so pejorative as to make its use improper, the Court denies Defendant's Motion."
Highland Plastics, Inc. v. Sorensen Research & Development Trust, 2-11-cv-02246 (CACD August 17, 2011, Order) (Otero, J.)