Re: Wrong legislation wording
The litmus test should be... "Does the company bringing this lawsuit currently, or have in the past, produce technology that this patent covers?" If the answer is no, then the litigant pays double the defendants costs and this patent is invalidated and unenforceable in any future lawsuit.
Sigh. If IP can't be transferred to NPEs, then its market is hugely restricted, which reduces its liquidity and value. That, in turn, reduces the value of the firm that creates it, making it that much harder for them to get funding, stave off bankruptcy, be acquired, etc.
Your brilliant proposal also removes much of the defensive value of patent portfolios, and so encourages more litigation. And it removes incentives for FRAND cross-licensing.
There are also NPEs that acquire patents based on applied research and then license them to practitioners, such as just about every research university anywhere. Oh look, you've just made those non-viable, because they can't enforce their licenses.
Predatory NPEs are a huge problem, but as with most problems, they aren't going to be solved by any proposal that fits on a bumper sticker. Honestly, whenever patents come up in a Reg story, it's like entering a room full of high-school sophomores.