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."

5 of 76 comments (clear)

  1. 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!

  2. Lawyers, statistics and lies... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In the article, one lawyer who practices in the district says that people like the district because it is fair to both sides. He wants us to believe that lawyers really want to be fair and would never file in a particular district if it would give them an advantage... ... and then he basically suggests all cases have the same merit and likelyhood of success. He points out that since only 60% of the cases go to the plaintiff in that district, the district isn't really patent-troll friendly. It seems inconceivable to him that a case which might only have a 1% chance of winning would be filed in that district so the odds would be improved.

  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:Thank you by Vengie · · Score: 4, Informative

    Because you don't understand the difference between venue and jurisdiction? Jurisdiction is a big deal. Venue, by comparison, is not. Under our rules, unless there's good cause, venue is plaintiff's choice (if there is more than one proper venue.) It's not that judges are cranky, but if venue is appropriate in more than one place, it's plaintiff's right.

    --
    When in doubt, parenthesize. At the very least it will let some poor schmuck bounce on the % key in vi. (Larry Wall)
  5. Shouldn't you explain that more? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    > Because you don't understand the difference between venue and jurisdiction?

    You should explain it to them if you're going to say that...

    Jurisdiction: Whether a given court has the POWER to hear a case. You can't take a patent case before a family court judge. You have to be in the right kind of court to begin with.

    Venue: What place the case is heard in (because there's more than one family court out there). This should ordinarily be a matter of convenience for all parties. In other words, there's no damn reason to sue everyone in the Eastern District of Texas when none of the parties have any business there. That said, there are good reasons avoid shuffling a case around the country for no reason, too, and to want to stop a lot of bickering over which court is more convenient for whom.

    The reason patent trolls love the Eastern District of Texas is because cases take very little time and are seen to favor patent plaintiffs. Although the article quotes a lower than average win percentage, it doesn't say if that takes settlements into account. In general, it's unlikely that you'll escape from EDT, even if you have no offices there and the plaintiff doesn't, either.

    Naturally, the people (lawyers) in Marshall are upset over this because they're raking in the cash. They have a nice, new hotel there, plenty of law offices, etc. It's a boon to the town, but it sucks for anyone sick of fighting off patent trolls.