4 ms·

>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

>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]

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]