Slashdot Mirror
The Supreme Court Is Cracking Down on Patent Trolls (fortune.com)
The Supreme Court on Monday limited the ability of patent holders to bring infringement lawsuits in courts that have plaintiff friendly reputations, a notable decision that could provide a boost to companies that defend against patent claims. The high court, in an opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas, ruled unanimously that a lower court has been following an incorrect legal standard for almost 30 years that made it possible for patent holders to sue companies in almost any U.S. jurisdiction. From a report: The justices sided 8-0 (PDF) with beverage flavoring company TC Heartland in its legal battle with food and beverage company Kraft Heinz, ruling that patent infringement suits can be filed only in courts located in the jurisdiction where the targeted company is incorporated. Justice Neil Gorsuch did not participate in the decision. The decision overturned a ruling last year by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, a Washington-based patent court, that said patent suits are fair game anywhere a defendant company's products are sold.
How about cracking down on stupid and frivolous patents too?
The whole east Texas crap has been the bane of the tech industry for decades.
How can the Supreme Court "crack down" on something that is a legal, precedented activity? Are they going to actually hand down a ruling that overturns prior decisions of the lower court? (And, yes, East Texas is about as low as it gets in this field.)
Er? The summary says that the lower court has been following the wrong standard for 30 years. And if you clicked on the link, SCOTUS specifically overturned 2 lower courts. I know it's to much to RTFA and the 13 page decision, but did you even look at the summary?
What does the decision mean? In the case of East Texas, lawsuits must be filed in the state and jurisdiction of the defendant, not where the plaintiff wants to sue. So it will make it harder for patent trolls to file now in East Texas where is it lawsuit friendly if their targets are not in that court's jurisdiction.
Held: As applied to domestic corporations, “reside[nce]” in 1400(b) refers only to the State of incorporation. The amendments to 1391 did not modify the meaning of 1400(b) as interpreted by Fourco.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Delaware is already a sizeable patent district -- e.g., most pharmaceutical patent cases are filed there, and they had ~10% of all cases filed last year.
Problem is they're not staffed for this kind of additional volume -- they only had three judges to start with, and then Judge Robinson took senior status this spring. With this sort of flood now looming, it's not clear who's going to want to sign up to replace her.
Maybe one of the "Judges" from East Texas can transfer up there, since their caseload is going to be considerably lighter...
Why would it be Delaware?
The majority of the corporations listed on the stock exchanges are incorporated in corporate-friendly Delaware. Businesses not destined for the stock exchanges are often incorporated in Nevada or Wyoming, as those states makes it difficult for plaintiffs to collect assets in a lawsuit judgement.
Are they going to actually hand down a ruling that overturns prior decisions of the lower court?
I believe the answer is yes.
Yes, with respect to the Federal Circuit's VE Holdings decision that allowed venue in other districts.
Yes, with respect to the district court's decision in the still-pending TC Heartland case that venue was proper outside the state where TC Heartland was incorporated.
No, with respect to any other case decided under the Federal Circuit's old precedent and not still pending.
The future of cases currently pending in now-inappropriate districts such as the Eastern District of Texas is a bit murky and will be interesting to watch play out.
This is a tragedy! The entire economy of East Texas is based on accepting bribes from patent holders. What are they going to do now!? :D