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.
I thought they always used East Texas because the people there were so intelligent?
How about cracking down on stupid and frivolous patents too?
thinks that this will just create more patent infringement friendly jurisdictions, as the wealth gets.... redistributed
>> patent infringement suits can be filed only in courts located in the jurisdiction where the targeted company is incorporated
I see a bunch of high-fiving going on in the Delaware legal community (because that's where a lot if not most of targeted companies will be incorporated). Also a lot of high-fiving in corporate legal departments, who asked their companies to (re)incorporate in Delaware to take advantage of its corporate-friendly laws.
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.
Are they going to actually hand down a ruling that overturns prior decisions of the lower court?
I believe the answer is yes.
The whole east Texas crap has been the bane of the tech industry for decades.
I was involved in two patent cases (providing research rather than expert witness); both were in East Texas.
One was the Novell/Red Hat case on user interfaces, and the other was on the infamous OpenMarket patents.
One we won (the Novell/Red Hat), and the other lost (the Open Market patents, finally thrown out years later due to the efforts of New Egg.
I will note that the Novell/Red litigation was helped by the judge coming in from out of district (from the appeals court). So venue clearly mattered greatly. Don't under estimate it.
The Open Market patents were about as an egregious violation of the patent system as I can imagine. The first of the three (the original one) described the method OpenMarket used for its early shopping cart system based on URL hacking. It was obsolete the day cookies were invented (which have their own set of terrible privacy problems, something we weren't thinking about much in the early 1990's; sigh). So nobody infringed it; by the time of its issuance it was moot, as cookies made it much easier; whether there was prior art isn't clear to me, but probably; I just never found a smoking gun. The second and third patent, continued over a decade, ended up covering about half of computer science and should never have been issued due to prior art.
Thankfully, the CEO of NewEgg fought in a later case and eventually won, but not after many companies lost and were held up.
So venue matters, and fixing the patent system to not issue trash sweeping patents matter both.
How can the Supreme Court crack down on anything? Technically it interprets existing law based on cases brought before it.
The Daddy casts sleep on the Baby. The Baby resists!
Sorry, that's just too far out of character for the Supreme Court - to actually do something, rather than dodging the question.
Is hell freezing over? Maybe it's time to start reading the summaries.
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.
"Sorry Delaware legal community" but Patent law is Federal law under and Federal Courts jurisdiction.
Federal Courts, plural. Different district judges are known to rule differently, and rulings of the Court of Appeals for one circuit aren't binding on other circuits unless upheld by the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court actually does something more often when faced with a circuit split.
That Rural East Texas has lost.... (a lot of companies incorporate in Delaware....)
Yep, and something like patent law is not an example where a circuit split might be beneficial.
Still, what's it been, like 30 years since the Troll explosion?
My first patent number started with 5 (meaning ~5 million prior patents issued since the inception of the patent office), that was about 25 years ago, and they've issued more than 5 million patents since then. Not even a small percentage are trolls, but the trolls really started working around the same time that patents started issuing so quickly.
If the court cases were incorrectly filed and ruled on for 30 years in the wrong location -- does that mean companies who did not settle can now have them overturned and go back to court in a new location?
If the case has closed then my understanding is no, the verdict will not be overturned due to what is now incorrect venue. At the time the case was argued, the venue was correct. That the venue is now different should have no legal bearing on old cases - only current and future cases. I believe the constitutional law that prevents old cases from being reopened in this way is called double jeopardy.
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.
Sorry, that's just too far out of character for the Supreme Court - to actually do something, rather than dodging the question.
Most of the cases the general public does not follow but there is always news when the court makes a decision. Some cases in recent memory that are Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District where the court rules unanimous that a school district must offer "individualized education program" to people with disabilities. The court has heard arguments in Microsoft v Baker about class certification in the case of the Xbox disc failures.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
On the flip side this makes going after GPL infringement even more difficult. The patent holder (developer) will have to retain lawyers and incurs travel expenses wherever the Infringing corporation is located. Few developers have that kind of time and resources
Northern District Court of California which is near Apple. I think Samsung USA is headquartered in New Jersey but I don't know where it is incorporated.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Are you confused? The Supreme Court overturns lower court decisions all the time...there's absolutely nothing unusual about that.
Notice who dissented in that opinion (Alito, Roberts, Kennedy)...in the 60s states were _required_ to gerrymander to give blacks their own black controlled voting districts. This will result in some of those districts going away.
North Carolina claimed they gerrymandered that way for 'partisan political reasons', which would have been legal. But since it collected blacks into two districts, it was not. Now they can distribute the blacks to be a minority of all the districts...that will be completely legal.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Apple is incorporated in Delaware. They operate as a foreign corporation in California. Delaware is used by many companies because of the state laws shielding companies from shareholder actions and it has a separate corporate court.
Double Jeopardy only applies to criminal law.
I thought this decision was about patents, not copyright. Software licenses are built on copyright, not patents.
24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
That is much more difficult then it used to be. Back when everything was spread out doing that could really hurt the minority district, but now when concentration in the bigger areas that becomes more difficult. Possible, but still difficult.
When you cant win, ad hominem.
To add credence to your "Is hell freezing over" question, please note that it was Justice Clarence Thomas who wrote the majority opinion. Since when has that been a thing?
'Challenge accepted!' The North Carolina legislature.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
At the very least, it appears to have violated the 6th amendment provision for a "speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed".
This ruling would seem to indicate that many of the "closed" cases were decided outside of their proper jurisdiction. If the way that the venue (and thus the jury) was chosen didn't follow the law as it was written at the time (regardless of interpretation at the time), is the ruling still valid?
I guess those crooked or biased activist judges in East Texas will have a lot of golfing to do.
Other than specific legal issues directly involving the Federal government, basically all cases that end up coming to the attention of the Supreme Court have to come up through either circuit courts or else through state-level courts prior to being considered for appeal at the Supreme Court level. The Supreme Court first gets to decide if there's any reason to hear the appeal (ie, is there something of-merit justifying a further examination or is the lower court ruling sufficient, or are there differing rulings between jurisdictions that need to be resolved) and then gets to decide on hearing the appeal if the existing ruling is correct, if a new ruling is correct, or if some position in between is correct as both sides might have some merit in their arguments.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
Problem solved
Are they going to actually hand down a ruling that overturns prior decisions of the lower court?
Well, if they don't, then cases found in plaintiffs favor may get reopened and appealed on the grounds of no jurisdiction.
The Sixth Amendment applies in the criminal context, not the civil context. Patent suits are civil matters.
Moderate drunk! It's more fun that way!
Few developers have that kind of time and resources
They can probably sue them still in the jurisdiction where the author was located when the software was written.
Also, i'm wondering if Patent trolls actually move their offices to Eastern Texas.
Because in the US: the Plaintiff has a choice of forum, the burden is on the party wishing to dismiss a case for FNC: The court must balance convenience against the plaintiff’s choice of forum. In other words, if the plaintiff’s choice of forum was reasonable, the defendant must show a compelling reason to change jurisdiction.
Copyright bro, not patent.
Perhaps this is because the court does not reflect the Executive, at least not yet.
Our current President gets a good portion of his income from rent-seeking, (licensing the Trump name) and probably considers that to be "good business." Since it's good business, I would expect him to favor that kind of enterprise, and discourage limitations on it.
The living have better things to do than to continue hating the dead.
ruling that patent infringement suits can be filed only in courts located in the jurisdiction where the targeted company is incorporated
I don't think that's going to work like you think it will.
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
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
Given the way it is set up in the constitution, gerrymandering is a natural byproduct. The founder fathers appear to have been naive in assuming political parties would not form and that elected representatives would be fair and high minded. It's impossible to have proportionate representation with a winner-takes-all election system. Thus we have gerrymandering attempts by all parties and in all states since the founding.
And yes, sometimes the gerrymandering is for a high minded principal, such as granting long denied voting rights to minorities. Which means that attempts to remove gerrymandering can also be done for self-serving low minded reasons.
(a) Civil actions, suits, or proceedings arising under any Act of Congress relating to copyrights or exclusive rights in mask works or designs may be instituted in the district in which the defendant or his agent resides or may be found.
Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
Texas actually considers their patent troll venues as something to draw tech companies to the area:
Tyler serves as headquarters to the Eastern District of Texas federal court, a popular venue for patent cases due to its judicial expertise, plaintiff-friendly local rules, speedy dispositions, and principled jurors who understand the value of Intellectual Property (or "IP"). The East Texas area also has an abundance of legal experts specializing in patent and IP litigation.