MPHJ Technology, the "patent troll" owned by Texas attorney Mac Rust, became infamous by sending out thousands of letters demanding $1,000 per worker from small businesses around the nation, just for using basic scan-to-email functions. MPHJ claims to own patents, which originated with a now-defunct IT business, that cover those basic functions.

Its licensing activities earned MPHJ the scorn of Congress. It also became the first patent troll in the country to be sued by the government; the Vermont Attorney General argued that MPHJ violated state consumer protection laws (legal action was taken in Nebraska as well). In Minnesota, a stay-away order was issued; in New York, a deal was struck over how to phrase the demand letters. More recently, state legislators in Kentucky and Maine have introduced legislation aimed at banning deceptive patent demand letters.

Far from giving up after meeting this resistance, MPHJ is pushing back hard. First, the company won a round in Nebraska, where a federal judge said that the MPHJ's patent demand letters were constitutionally protected free speech. Then, rather than cooperate with investigators from the Federal Trade Commission, the company actually went ahead and sued the agency, naming individual commissioners in the suit.

Now MPHJ has doubled down on its attack on the government, arguing that the Vermont lawsuit shouldn't just be dismissed—the state should be sanctioned and forced to pay MPHJ's legal fees.

The sanctions motion (PDF) in the case, filed on Friday, seeks to leverage the Nebraska federal court ruling that the MPHJ patent licensing letters are protected free speech. MPHJ lawyers say that Vermont's lawsuit "has become a textbook case of the government attempting to interfere with free speech for a reason specifically prohibited to the government—namely, that it happens not to like the particular speech, which in this case is patent enforcement activity by an entity that acquired the patents and does not engage in business activity related to the patents."

"There is no set of circumstances upon which the State can prevail in either this Court or Vermont state court," write MPHJ's lawyers. "As such, this case has become a textbook case of sham litigation."

The motion continues:

As the State has repeatedly explained in its briefing on its Motion to Remand, it has chosen to plead its Complaint in a way that purposely avoids raising patent issues—including the absence of the required allegations that MPHJ's patent enforcement efforts were objectively and subjectively baseless.

The motion asks for dismissal of the lawsuit, along with fees and costs to be awarded to MPHJ as payback for the state's "vexatious litigation."

In addition to noting its positive result in Nebraska, MPHJ also wants to use a deal it struck in New York state to its advantage. In the Empire State, MPHJ reached a deal with the attorney general which preserves its rights to send out a "toned down" version of its original demand letter.

"That [agreement] confirms New York's recognition that MPHJ has a right to enforce its patents even under state law," write MPHJ lawyers in the motion for sanctions.

An MPHJ spokesperson didn't respond to a request for comment from Ars on the sanctions motion.