3 ms·
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 p
by 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.
- smallnamespace 10y ago> judges constantly see patent cases that are looking for expansivenes How does that solve the problem? Wouldn't normal appeals courts see the exact same set of cases as the patent circuit currently does, under this proposal?
- ubernostrum 10y agoIf patent cases were distributed geographically the way other cases are, then in theory the other circuits would see patent cases become a small fraction of their caseload, which reduces the chance of the feedback-loop problem in any specific circuit. In reality, probably most cases would end up in the Fifth Circuit because that's the one that gets appeals from the Eastern District of Texas, but that's when you can step in and start pushing to avoid the venue-shopping problem that weighs down East Texas with patent cases.