Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

5th Circuit May Stop Patent Troll "Forum Shopping"

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on from the small-speed-bumps-in-a-patent-troll's-daily-life dept.

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Why is a 5th Circuit product liability case getting interest from lawyers all over the country? Because it might put an end to forum shopping by 'non practicing entities' (patent trolls) who prefer to file in the Eastern District of Texas, no matter how little relevance that forum has to their case. Thanks to the rules involving 28 U.S.C. 1404(a) motions and patent cases, people who get sued in Marshall, Texas usually can't get the case transferred elsewhere, even though that forum is seen as unreasonably favorable for patent plaintiffs. But, if the panel of judges in In Re: Volkswagen rules the way some anticipate, that could all change, and there are no less than six amici curiae who have filed briefs arguing both sides of it."

4 of 76 comments (clear)

  1. Updated headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Slashdot Short Circuit May Stop Troll "First Posting"

  2. New order of business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    1. Patent trolls no longer allowed to forum shop to Marshall, TX.
    2. Patent trolls, realizing this, all move to Marshall, TX so they may continue such practice.
    3. Marshall has a massive upsurge in interest to the area with all these "big name businesses" moving in.
    4. Marshall expands its city services (etc, etc) to accommodate.
    5. Patent troll companies that moved to Marshall prove to be shells, not contributing to the city much at all.
    6. Marshall collapses under new bogus businesses.
    7. ???
    8. Profit!

  3. the system is very broken by 0111+1110 · · Score: 4, Funny

    The history of In Re: Volkswagen is as follows: In their 2006 complaint in Singleton, et al. v. Volkswagen, et al., the plaintiffs allege that their daughter, 7-year-old Mariana Singleton, was sitting in the backseat of a 1999 Volkswagen Golf when a defective front passenger seat collapsed on her during a wreck with another vehicle, crushing her skull. Ewww. Pics? Why is it that it seems so sensible to wear a helmet on a motorcycle, but in a car it is considered insane? A motorcycle helmet in this case might have saved the life of this cute little girl.

    Some lawyers worry that the 5th Circuit could issue a ruling in In Re: Volkswagen that will hurt their business in the Eastern District -- the large numbers of patent and product liability suits has proven to be a boon to many lawyers and firms operating there.

    "It could hurt lawyers all over the state," especially in Dallas, which has a large contingent of firms that practice in the Eastern District, says Michael C. Smith, a partner in the Marshall office of Siebman Reynolds Burg Phillips & Smith who represents the plaintiffs. Lawyers making less money? Say it aint so! Now that would be the real tragedy here.
    --
    Quite an experience to live in fear, isn't it? That's what it is to be a slave.
  4. Re:Both sides? by lucas_picador · · Score: 3, Funny

    Or is the summary just incoherent, and they really meant to say "either side".

    You're being overly pedantic. The sentence parses just fine as:

    "There are no less than six amici curiae who have filed briefs, arguing [among them] both sides of it."

    And, as someone else pointed out, and to let you know that pedantry is pretty much de rigeur on ./, the singular is amicus curiae, or "friend of the court".

    (De rigeur is French. It translates roughly as "according to protocol".)

    (Also, the initial sentence is incorrect in a different way: it should read "no fewer than six".)

    (Yes, I'm being a jackass on purpose.)