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.
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.
That'd be nice, but that's not what this case was about; the question they were asked to rule on was "is it really okay for them to sue us in Delaware even though we're incorporated in Indiana?" and they said "no, actually, not so much."
Give it time. Once there's a few contradictory rulings between districts they'll get to start in on bullshit patents (but even then, I expect the most likely approach is going to be "given what we've seen come out of PTO, the court should no longer just blindly assume that the examiner actually did their job with regard to obviousness and/or prior art", which should go a long way to leveling the field between the owner of a junk patent and the defendant).