3 ms·

28 USC §1400 (b), the patent venue statute is designed to prevent places like East Texas from running national tech policy and to protect small companies from p

28 USC §1400 (b), the patent venue statute is designed to prevent places like East Texas from running national tech policy and to protect small companies from predation by troll megacorps. "Any civil action for patent infringement may be brought in the judicial district where the defendant resides, or where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business." The CAFC (the patent appeals court) judicially abolished the statute in its VE Holdings decision so that patent lawyers would get richer and more powerful. That's the motive behind many CAFC decisions since patents are the root of the judges' power and power -- as is predictable -- has corrupted. Now the new case asks them to revise that decision and follow the law as written. Let's see if the new Obama judges are more honest than their predecessors. (The verdict so far: maybe.)

joeblow99 11y ago
the verdict so far: NFW
monochromatic 11y ago
It's not anywhere near that simple. The issue is that Congress amended §1391 to broaden the definition of a defendant's residence. The CAFC then interpreted the two statutory provisions together according to their plain wording. Decent discussion here: http://patentlyo.com/patent/2007/04/patent_jurisdic.html http://patentlyo.com/patent/2007/04/patent_jurisdic.html edit: I thought your name looked familiar. We discussed this a couple of months ago, and you're still spouting the same incorrect nonsense.
- wtallis 11y ago
  Your willingness to ignore the crucial fact of how the CAFC and Eastern District of Texas rely on the judicially broadened concept of personal jurisdiction does not give you excuse to take that tone with your accusations. The CAFC is decidedly not interpreting statute according to its plain wording when it interprets a clause intended to limit judicial powers as having no limiting effect. There's definitely room for reasonable disagreement with your position.
  - monochromatic 11y ago
    Read the blog post I linked, then read VE Holdings, then get back to me. Or maybe you've read them, and your position is that Congress just didnt know what personal jurisdiction meant when it rewrote 1391.
    - mnarayan01 11y ago
      > Or maybe you've read them, and your position is that Congress just didnt know what personal jurisdiction meant when it rewrote 1391. You say that like it's improbable.
    - wtallis 11y ago
      Let's turn this around: are you asserting that Congress did anticipate in 1990 that personal jurisdiction would extend to almost anybody with a website without requiring specific evidence of any actual commerce with the district or state in question? Because the case law on that was certainly a mess in the subsequent years, and it doesn't look like it's even been taken up by the Supreme Court. What is necessary under Federal Circuit law for an e-commerce business, for example, to avoid falling under the personal jurisdiction of Eastern Texas for a software patent suit? And do you believe that such measures—if they exist—do "not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice"?
      - dhimes 11y ago
        Well, I've included in my TOS that the product is not for use there. Maybe that will help (not released yet).
      - monochromatic 11y ago
        The current doctrine of "minimal contacts" had already been around for 45 years in 1990. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Shoe_Co._v._Washington https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Shoe_Co._v._Wa... Yes, I think Comgress should be presumed to have known about it.

joeblow99 11y ago

the verdict so far: NFW

monochromatic 11y ago

It's not anywhere near that simple. The issue is that Congress amended §1391 to broaden the definition of a defendant's residence. The CAFC then interpreted the two statutory provisions together according to their plain wording. Decent discussion here: http://patentlyo.com/patent/2007/04/patent_jurisdic.html http://patentlyo.com/patent/2007/04/patent_jurisdic.html edit: I thought your name looked familiar. We discussed this a couple of months ago, and you're still spouting the same incorrect nonsense.

wtallis 11y ago
Your willingness to ignore the crucial fact of how the CAFC and Eastern District of Texas rely on the judicially broadened concept of personal jurisdiction does not give you excuse to take that tone with your accusations. The CAFC is decidedly not interpreting statute according to its plain wording when it interprets a clause intended to limit judicial powers as having no limiting effect. There's definitely room for reasonable disagreement with your position.
- monochromatic 11y ago
  Read the blog post I linked, then read VE Holdings, then get back to me. Or maybe you've read them, and your position is that Congress just didnt know what personal jurisdiction meant when it rewrote 1391.
  - mnarayan01 11y ago
    > Or maybe you've read them, and your position is that Congress just didnt know what personal jurisdiction meant when it rewrote 1391. You say that like it's improbable.
  - wtallis 11y ago
    Let's turn this around: are you asserting that Congress did anticipate in 1990 that personal jurisdiction would extend to almost anybody with a website without requiring specific evidence of any actual commerce with the district or state in question? Because the case law on that was certainly a mess in the subsequent years, and it doesn't look like it's even been taken up by the Supreme Court. What is necessary under Federal Circuit law for an e-commerce business, for example, to avoid falling under the personal jurisdiction of Eastern Texas for a software patent suit? And do you believe that such measures—if they exist—do "not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice"?
    - dhimes 11y ago
      Well, I've included in my TOS that the product is not for use there. Maybe that will help (not released yet).
    - monochromatic 11y ago
      The current doctrine of "minimal contacts" had already been around for 45 years in 1990. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Shoe_Co._v._Washington https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Shoe_Co._v._Wa... Yes, I think Comgress should be presumed to have known about it.