3 ms·

The patents may be invalid; Mangrove Partners filed a petition with the Patent Office to have them declared invalid, and the Patent and Trial Appeals Board agre

by alricb 10y ago

The patents may be invalid; Mangrove Partners filed a petition with the Patent Office to have them declared invalid, and the Patent and Trial Appeals Board agreed. But VirnetX has appealed the declaration to the Federal Circuit, which could find the patents valid. If the Federal Circuit does find the patents invalid, the trial will have been for nought. (You could argue that it would have been better to wait for the validity to be determined before proceeding with the trial, and indeed I think Apple did, but East Texas being East Texas the judge went ahead with the trial anyway)

paulddraper 10y ago
I'm unfamiliar with East Texas. What exactly is is reputation?
- taf2 10y ago
  Here is a good summary of the issue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sG9UMMq2dz4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sG9UMMq2dz4
- imurray 10y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11862476 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11862476
- mtgx 10y ago
  It's where all the patent trolls file patent infringement cases due to heavily pro-patent/corrupt judges.
- geofft 10y ago
  https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/07/why-do-patent-trolls-go-texas-its-not-bbq https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/07/why-do-patent-trolls-g... > Last year, there were just over 6,000 patent suits filed in federal courts around the country. One in four of those cases (24.54% to be exact) were filed in the Eastern District of Texas. But why do patent plaintiffs, especially trolls, see it as such a favorable forum? Partly, the district's relatively rapid litigation timetable can put pressure on defendants to settle. But other local practices in the Eastern District also favor patentees. And, in our view, they do so in a way that is inconsistent with the governing Federal Rules, and work to mask the consistent refusal by the courts in the Eastern District to end meritless cases before trial. It has a reputation for being so favorable to software patents that it's worth setting up an office in the district just so you can have that judge decide your cases.
  - skuhn 10y ago
    It's gotten even worse since then. A quick trip down memory lane: 2003: 14 cases 2004: 59 cases 2006: 236 cases 2013: 1386 cases (24.5% of federal patent cases) 2015: 2540 cases (43.6% of federal patent cases) The majority of those cases in 2015 were assigned to a single judge, despite the fact that there are 5 active judges, 3 senior judges and 3 vacanies in the district. Two of the vacanies have been unfilled for over a year. Whether or not the Eastern District (and specifically Judge Gilstrap) are actually more favorable to patent suit plaintiffs, this is straight up abuse of venue and that causes it's own issues. The cost to a defendant to litigate their case in Tyler, TX is an unnecessary burden.
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
dave_sullivan 10y ago
What would a piece of legislation be to actually solve the issue with East Texas court being so pro-patent? Something like all patent suits must be prosecuted in the jurisdiction of the company supposedly infringing? Which I guess would end up in Delaware mostly... It seems like there are problems in the patent office with issuing a lot of patents that shouldn't have been issued in the first place, but there is also a problem with there being several judges who collectively control billions of dollars worth of legal decisions. So if you're going to legislate, it seems to me that patents should be easier to overturn and cases need to be spread more uniformly across jurisdictions.
- ubernostrum 10y ago
  Honestly, a more meaningful step would be to remove the Federal Circuit's exclusive jurisdiction over patent case appeals. Normally when a federal case gets appealed, it goes to the court of appeals for the part of the country where the case originated. But appeals in patent cases go exclusively to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). This has led to the CAFC diverging significantly from traditional interpretation of patent law and to several strong rebukes from the Supreme Court, thanks in large part to the feedback loop of primarily seeing cases from people seeking highly expansive readings of patent law. Restoring diversity to patent cases -- by having appeals go to the geographic circuit courts instead of concentrating them all in a single specialized court -- would do a lot to roll back the overzealous expansions of patent law we've seen in recent decades.
  - Trill-I-Am 10y ago
    Why does concentration of jurisdiction inherently lead to expansive patent readings?
    - GavinMcG 10y ago
      The comment you replied to suggested that it's partly because of "the feedback loop of primarily seeing cases from people seeking highly expansive readings of patent law." That is, these judges constantly see patent cases that are looking for expansiveness, which means that their baseline for what's normal may be skewed, or they may be primed for expansiveness.

by alricb 10y ago

paulddraper 10y ago

I'm unfamiliar with East Texas. What exactly is is reputation?

taf2 10y ago
Here is a good summary of the issue: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sG9UMMq2dz4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sG9UMMq2dz4
imurray 10y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11862476 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11862476
mtgx 10y ago
It's where all the patent trolls file patent infringement cases due to heavily pro-patent/corrupt judges.
geofft 10y ago
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/07/why-do-patent-trolls-go-texas-its-not-bbq https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2014/07/why-do-patent-trolls-g... > Last year, there were just over 6,000 patent suits filed in federal courts around the country. One in four of those cases (24.54% to be exact) were filed in the Eastern District of Texas. But why do patent plaintiffs, especially trolls, see it as such a favorable forum? Partly, the district's relatively rapid litigation timetable can put pressure on defendants to settle. But other local practices in the Eastern District also favor patentees. And, in our view, they do so in a way that is inconsistent with the governing Federal Rules, and work to mask the consistent refusal by the courts in the Eastern District to end meritless cases before trial. It has a reputation for being so favorable to software patents that it's worth setting up an office in the district just so you can have that judge decide your cases.
- skuhn 10y ago
  It's gotten even worse since then. A quick trip down memory lane: 2003: 14 cases 2004: 59 cases 2006: 236 cases 2013: 1386 cases (24.5% of federal patent cases) 2015: 2540 cases (43.6% of federal patent cases) The majority of those cases in 2015 were assigned to a single judge, despite the fact that there are 5 active judges, 3 senior judges and 3 vacanies in the district. Two of the vacanies have been unfilled for over a year. Whether or not the Eastern District (and specifically Judge Gilstrap) are actually more favorable to patent suit plaintiffs, this is straight up abuse of venue and that causes it's own issues. The cost to a defendant to litigate their case in Tyler, TX is an unnecessary burden.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

dave_sullivan 10y ago

What would a piece of legislation be to actually solve the issue with East Texas court being so pro-patent? Something like all patent suits must be prosecuted in the jurisdiction of the company supposedly infringing? Which I guess would end up in Delaware mostly... It seems like there are problems in the patent office with issuing a lot of patents that shouldn't have been issued in the first place, but there is also a problem with there being several judges who collectively control billions of dollars worth of legal decisions. So if you're going to legislate, it seems to me that patents should be easier to overturn and cases need to be spread more uniformly across jurisdictions.

ubernostrum 10y ago
Honestly, a more meaningful step would be to remove the Federal Circuit's exclusive jurisdiction over patent case appeals. Normally when a federal case gets appealed, it goes to the court of appeals for the part of the country where the case originated. But appeals in patent cases go exclusively to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). This has led to the CAFC diverging significantly from traditional interpretation of patent law and to several strong rebukes from the Supreme Court, thanks in large part to the feedback loop of primarily seeing cases from people seeking highly expansive readings of patent law. Restoring diversity to patent cases -- by having appeals go to the geographic circuit courts instead of concentrating them all in a single specialized court -- would do a lot to roll back the overzealous expansions of patent law we've seen in recent decades.
- Trill-I-Am 10y ago
  Why does concentration of jurisdiction inherently lead to expansive patent readings?
  - GavinMcG 10y ago
    The comment you replied to suggested that it's partly because of "the feedback loop of primarily seeing cases from people seeking highly expansive readings of patent law." That is, these judges constantly see patent cases that are looking for expansiveness, which means that their baseline for what's normal may be skewed, or they may be primed for expansiveness.