A new survey of in-house lawyers is adding some heft to the claim that patent attacks, especially by so-called "trolls," are hurting the economy. Professor Colleen Chien of Santa Clara University revealed the results of her survey of 116 in-house lawyers today, and it shows that patent trolls—or companies that exist simply to litigate patents—are more prevalent than one might think.

Chien led off her brief talk by laying out the scope of the problem. Fully 62 percent of the patent lawsuits brought in 2012 were filed by trolls, which she calls Patent Assertion Entities or PAEs, the same nomenclature used by the government.

And within that giant group of suits, the trends don't look good. Traditionally patent lawsuits were filed against large tech companies, which were seen as the most lucrative targets. Increasingly, the trend is that trolls are going for "low-cost, low-risk patent assertion," Chien said, and they're often funded by investors. And increasingly, the targets go beyond the tech sector—to retailers, restaurants, and others.

Chien reached out to a variety of in-house counsel to ask them how this proliferation of patent lawsuits was affecting their businesses. "In some ways this was like a customer survey," said Chien at an SCU legal conference on Friday. "How are these [patent] services performing for you?"

More than 90 percent of the lawyers said that, unsurprisingly, troll attacks were expensive and distracting. 96 percent said the suits had a financial impact on their company, and 95 percent said it had distracted from their "core business."

Smaller groups of lawyers reported more alarming results. A full quarter of the respondents said they had lost customers or revenue. More than a third, 38 percent, said they had modified their products because of patent claims. Eight percent said they had delayed new hires, and eight percent also said they had exited entire business lines because of patent attacks.

Perhaps most stunning, 82 percent of the companies said their customers had been subjected to patent troll demands, for using or implementing their products. Increasingly, trolls are going after end-users of products, making relatively "small" demands on small and medium-sized businesses. (A classic example are the six-lettered shell companies demanding $1,000 per worker from businesses just for using scanners.)

Chien's survey also asked what kinds of reform the lawyers would like to see. Some reforms were seen as effective: for example, limiting discovery was a tactic seen as "somewhat" or "very" effective by 77 percent of respondents. They still wanted to see punishments for those who gamed out the discovery process. "It all hinges on how difficult the other side wants to be," wrote one surveyed lawyer.

Unsurprisingly, the lawyers wanted cases to be less costly and to move faster. 76 percent said that a timely decision on "summary judgment" motions—when one side or the other attempts to win without a trial—would be a "very effective" change. A strong majority of in-house lawyers also wanted to see their lawsuits put on hold while patent reexaminations proceeded. Around half thought timely transfer decisions and limits on how many claims are in play would help as well.

More in-house lawyers tended to think those types of interventions that come early in a case would be more helpful than remedies that come after the fact, like damages reform or fee-shifting. Still, the hunger was for reform on every front. Other changes asked about were "end-user immunity" or reforms that would block trolls from accessing the International Trade Commission, a venue for patent fights that is supposed to be limited to "domestic industries" but has been increasingly friendly to bare-bones patent licensing companies.

The survey comes at a time when reforms to the patent system are being considered more seriously than ever before. A bill that would require fee-shifting in patent troll cases is being considered in Congress currently, and a second bill expanding how patents can be fought at the Patent Office is expected to be introduced in the Senate on Monday.

As noted above, Chien's survey included 116 in-house counsel from around 100 companies, mostly in the tech sector. While some small companies were included, the majority of the respondents worked at larger companies with $100 million or more in revenue.