3 ms·

Alice v. CLS Bank wiped out a bunch of silly "do it on a computer" patents. Hopefully a sane judge will look at this and decide it fits under that umbrella. Oth

by jobu 11y ago

Alice v. CLS Bank wiped out a bunch of silly "do it on a computer" patents. Hopefully a sane judge will look at this and decide it fits under that umbrella. Otherwise we'll end up waiting a decade for the Supreme Court to come down with a decision that <trivial concept> + "do it over the internet" is not patentable. It is a bit sad though that the USPTO has abdicated their responsibility and left it to the legal system.

WildUtah 11y ago
These cases are in the Eastern District of Texas. EDTX allows plaintiffs to choose their judge. Judge Gilstrap does not believe in the precedential validity of Alice v. CLS Bank and prohibits defendants from making motions based on it unless he specifically invites them, which he doesn't do. And that judge gets about one fourth of all patent cases in the country. The Federal Circuit abolished the law (still on the books but null and void) that required patent litigation to be brought in the district where a defendant was accused of infringing and allowed cases to be brought anywhere the plaintiff likes. Rep. Gilmore in the House of Representatives has introduced a bill, the Innovation Act, that would restore a weaker version of that statute, until the CAFC abolishes it again.
- monochromatic 11y ago
  > Judge Gilstrap does not believe in the precedential validity of Alice v. CLS Bank Surely the truth is a little more nuanced than a federal judge simply not believing in the precedential validity of binding precedent. > the law (still on the books but null and void) that required patent litigation to be brought in the district where a defendant was accused of infringing What law is that? I thought the general rule was that (subject to certain constraints) the plaintiff has some latitude in this.
  - brlewis 11y ago
    Yes, the Alice part is more nuanced: http://www.technologylawdispatch.com/2015/06/intellectual-property/judge-gilstrap-announces-new-procedure-for-alice-motions-in-patent-cases/ http://www.technologylawdispatch.com/2015/06/intellectual-pr... Objections to this procedure: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/06/east-texas-judges-invention-a-method-for-hampering-patent-defendants/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/06/east-texas-judges...
  - WildUtah 11y ago
    >the truth is a little more nuanced than a federal judge simply not believing in the precedential validity of binding precedent Not much more nuanced. The EDTX judges have a tradition of making millions for themselves and their families through patent abuse in their courtrooms. Judges cannot be forced to apply 'binding precedent' honestly if they don't prefer to. The appeals court has the same problem. >I thought the general rule was that (subject to certain constraints) the plaintiff has some latitude in this. That is the general rule, but it leads to abuse in IP cases, so Congress set a different rule. By law, IP cases must be brought where the defendant resides. (28 USC §1400) The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit -- the patent appeals court, as is its usual practice, nullified the law in the service of growing the patent troll court in Eastern Texas.
    - monochromatic 11y ago
      It should go without saying, but I'll say it anyway--nothing I write here should be construed as legal advice. Anyway... > The EDTX judges have a tradition of making millions for themselves and their families through patent abuse in their courtrooms. If there were even the appearance of impropriety here, the judges would be facing consequences. If you don't like the way they rule on things and manage their dockets, that's fine. But it doesn't make them corrupt. If you have any evidence for the judges "making millions for themselves and their families through patent abuse in their courtrooms," I'd love to see it. > That is the general rule, but it leads to abuse in IP cases, so Congress set a different rule. > By law, IP cases must be brought where the defendant resides. (28 USC §1400) The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit -- the patent appeals court, as is its usual practice, nullified the law in the service of growing the patent troll court in Eastern Texas. Your memory is essentially backwards here. Congress expanded the language of § 1391 (http://patentlyo.com/patent/2007/04/patent_jurisdic.html http://patentlyo.com/patent/2007/04/patent_jurisdic.html) and the Federal Circuit then interpreted that new statutory provision, along with § 1400, according to its plain language in VE Holding (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3729998940644656498 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=372999894064465...).
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]

by jobu 11y ago

WildUtah 11y ago

These cases are in the Eastern District of Texas. EDTX allows plaintiffs to choose their judge. Judge Gilstrap does not believe in the precedential validity of Alice v. CLS Bank and prohibits defendants from making motions based on it unless he specifically invites them, which he doesn't do. And that judge gets about one fourth of all patent cases in the country. The Federal Circuit abolished the law (still on the books but null and void) that required patent litigation to be brought in the district where a defendant was accused of infringing and allowed cases to be brought anywhere the plaintiff likes. Rep. Gilmore in the House of Representatives has introduced a bill, the Innovation Act, that would restore a weaker version of that statute, until the CAFC abolishes it again.

monochromatic 11y ago
> Judge Gilstrap does not believe in the precedential validity of Alice v. CLS Bank Surely the truth is a little more nuanced than a federal judge simply not believing in the precedential validity of binding precedent. > the law (still on the books but null and void) that required patent litigation to be brought in the district where a defendant was accused of infringing What law is that? I thought the general rule was that (subject to certain constraints) the plaintiff has some latitude in this.
- brlewis 11y ago
  Yes, the Alice part is more nuanced: http://www.technologylawdispatch.com/2015/06/intellectual-property/judge-gilstrap-announces-new-procedure-for-alice-motions-in-patent-cases/ http://www.technologylawdispatch.com/2015/06/intellectual-pr... Objections to this procedure: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/06/east-texas-judges-invention-a-method-for-hampering-patent-defendants/ http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/06/east-texas-judges...
- WildUtah 11y ago
  >the truth is a little more nuanced than a federal judge simply not believing in the precedential validity of binding precedent Not much more nuanced. The EDTX judges have a tradition of making millions for themselves and their families through patent abuse in their courtrooms. Judges cannot be forced to apply 'binding precedent' honestly if they don't prefer to. The appeals court has the same problem. >I thought the general rule was that (subject to certain constraints) the plaintiff has some latitude in this. That is the general rule, but it leads to abuse in IP cases, so Congress set a different rule. By law, IP cases must be brought where the defendant resides. (28 USC §1400) The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit -- the patent appeals court, as is its usual practice, nullified the law in the service of growing the patent troll court in Eastern Texas.
  - monochromatic 11y ago
    It should go without saying, but I'll say it anyway--nothing I write here should be construed as legal advice. Anyway... > The EDTX judges have a tradition of making millions for themselves and their families through patent abuse in their courtrooms. If there were even the appearance of impropriety here, the judges would be facing consequences. If you don't like the way they rule on things and manage their dockets, that's fine. But it doesn't make them corrupt. If you have any evidence for the judges "making millions for themselves and their families through patent abuse in their courtrooms," I'd love to see it. > That is the general rule, but it leads to abuse in IP cases, so Congress set a different rule. > By law, IP cases must be brought where the defendant resides. (28 USC §1400) The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit -- the patent appeals court, as is its usual practice, nullified the law in the service of growing the patent troll court in Eastern Texas. Your memory is essentially backwards here. Congress expanded the language of § 1391 (http://patentlyo.com/patent/2007/04/patent_jurisdic.html http://patentlyo.com/patent/2007/04/patent_jurisdic.html) and the Federal Circuit then interpreted that new statutory provision, along with § 1400, according to its plain language in VE Holding (https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=3729998940644656498 https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=372999894064465...).
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]