Slashdot Mirror
US Top Court Considers Changing Where Patent Cases May Be Filed (reuters.com)
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday grappled over whether to upend a quarter-century of practice and limit where patent-infringement lawsuits can be filed. From a report on Reuters: The U.S. Supreme Court struggled over whether to upend nearly 30 years of law governing patent lawsuits that critics say allows often-baseless litigants to sue in friendly courts, giving them the upper hand over high-technology companies such as Apple and Alphabet Google. The justices heard an hour of arguments in an appeal by beverage flavoring company TC Heartland LLC to have a patent infringement suit brought against it by food and beverage company Kraft Heinz moved from federal court in Delaware, where it was filed, to Heartland's home base in Indiana. TC Heartland is challenging a lower court ruling denying a transfer to Indiana. Even though the case did not involve a lawsuit filed in Texas, the arguments involved the peculiar fact that the bulk of patent litigation in the United States is occurring in a single, rural region of East Texas, far from the centers of technology and innovation in the United States. Critics have said the federal court there has rulings and procedures favoring entities that generate revenue by suing over patents instead of making products, sometimes called "patent trolls." The outcome of the TC Heartland case could be profoundly felt in the East Texas courts. The justices could curtail where patent lawsuits may be launched, limiting them to where a defendant company is incorporated and potentially making it harder to get to trial or score lucrative jury verdicts.
About time they weighed in on "venue-shopping" by trolls. Either of the defendant or plaintiff's headquarters' locations.
We have dedicated courts specifically for Bankruptcy and Immigration. We need a dedicated court for both Patent and Malpractice issues.
It's obvious that patent cases should be heard in the 9th Circuit.
Or at least San Antonio.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Have gnu, will travel.
A quarter century sounds like a lot because it uses the big word 'century' but it's only 25 years, which really isn't very long in legal terms. The supreme court frequently makes decisions on cases that are a century.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
If they want to make the patent cases be heard where the DEFENDANT (not the troll/plaintiff) is incorporated, that will greatly expand the number of cases heard in Delaware. Nearly every large US corporation, regardless of where their actual HQ is, is incorporated in Delaware.
So, first, this isn't just "upend(ing) a quarter-century of practice," it's flat-out placing those accused of patent infringement in a far better position than any company accused of anything else. In general, venue is congruent to jurisdiction, meaning if the corporation has minimum contacts in a judicial district, they can be sued there. I'm not sure why, say, Walmart could be sued for any federal question anywhere in the United States, unless they were being sued for patent infringement at which point you could only sue them in Delaware or wherever they're incorporated.
Second, very legitimate patent infringement lawsuits are filed in the Eastern District of Texas all the time. Just because the tech world obsesses over "patent trolls" and views intellectual property in a very negative light doesn't make that district "favor" any particular entity. If my firm were larger and we had the sort of clients that could afford significant travel bills, I swear we'd file everything there, because the court knows what it's doing. They have far more experience with patent law in that district than anywhere else in the United States. The rulings don't "favor," they are informed. The procedures don't "favor," they keep the docket moving. We filed a suit literally 6 years ago in the midwest and we're still a year from trial- the Eastern District of Texas would have gotten this case resolved years ago.
Judge shopping is not restricted to just Patents. The courts need a complete overhaul, as the 9th Circuit Court (Lawyers call it the 9th Circus) proves.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
"US Top Court"
Because "supreme" just doesn't quite cut it.
I would take all of the judges, as they finish their case loads, and completely disperse them randomly to all the federal court districts.
The idea is a patent troll wouldn't be able to venue shop as their favorite judge may be in the heart of Silicon Valley, right alongside other judges that frown upon this revenue seeking business model.
To the patent troll, this puts the randomness back into Russian Roulette, by having at least one chamber loaded.
The Roman Rule: The one who says it cannot be done shall not interrupt the one who is doing it.
What about the time to vert and pick the jury?
For 40 years, judges have argued, it doesn't matter which court is used, it doesn't matter which lawyer is used; the verdict you get, is the verdict you deserve. Add to that, attorneys don't have to be honest with juries and the result is the systemic abuse that one sees in US court cases. Ruling for specialization might be a start to undoing the bias.
A.If you claim a patent. And do not implement it. You must give up your patent. B. Patents cannot be vague or wide sweeping. They must be focused and targeted on a single item.
What else do you call them? That's what they are...
opporitune moment to consider that:
1) the patent laws are federal, and local courts are not necessarily knowlegeable...
2) the patent office is near-complete in its coverage of patent cases, with all of the information and experts handy,
3) and is in Washington, DC... not Wet Spring, Alaska.
THUS: there should be a specific court, in the capital, specifically for patent claims.
With technology, and political/judicial oversight, the problem of 'favorable judges' ( The Honorable Billy-Bob, my cousins father-in-law.... )
This would solve the problem, or should solve the problem, or might solve the problem,
And what about FDA cases, too ?