16 ms·
U.S. top court tightens patent suit rules in blow to ‘patent trolls’
- ytNumbers 9y agoGoing forward, I can't see any tech companies making the mistake of incorporating in the state of Texas. Better safe than sorry.
- lightedman 9y agoPlenty didn't incorporate in East Teas (my home area) and still sued and won anyways. This ruling wouldn't really stop them from incorporating or not. Just going to make them think twice about actual jurisdiction. Many companies won't have lawyers that know of or understand this case, and as such some companies will try taking advantage of that fact. Notice - we had to go all the way back to the 50s to resolve this case, and since the earlier 90s is when out-of-true-jurisdiction cases started happening. It took almost 30 years to stop that. What really needs to happen is anyone's guess. Every system someone comes up with will likely have a flaw to be exploited.
- raverbashing 9y agoEspecially on the East of Texas
- ascorbic 9y agoI'd imagine this will lead to defendant-friendly patent laws becoming one of the selling points that states use to try to lure tech companies to relocate.
- ambulancechaser 9y agothese suits are filed in federal district courts as far as I can tell. State law won't be controlling on the issues there.
- nickpsecurity 9y agoYeah, I further encourage not selling anything to people in that court's area of influence except maybe through a specific corporation designed to do just that. Make sure it constantly transfers its money out, too. Reason being there's a lot of money to be made selling in Texas, Austin is a tech hub, and University of Texas does some of the best work w/ top-notch researchers. So, can't leave entirely missing the benefits but certainly hedge against the risks.
- jdmichal 9y agoAustin isn't in the Eastern district, but the Western. None of Texas' major cities are in the Eastern district. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_judicial_district https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_judicial... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_District_Court_for_the_Eastern_District_of_Texas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_District_Court_f...
- nickpsecurity 9y agoI was wondering about that. Thanks for the info. :)
- stcredzero 9y agoOtherwise Texas policy seems to be pro-corporation. No corporate franchise tax until you make at least $100k, and you can form a corporation to do whatever you want. I know of one Texas corporation that did business for years in a Schrodinger's cat-like state, where it only kind of existed because they were in the process of finding a new board. Technically, the corporation existed, but wouldn't have been a valid entity to do business with, but most people would only check that the company existed. I'm not sure why it was done, but I suspect those guys got out of paying the franchise tax this way. (No, it wasn't my company!)
- arbuge 9y ago>> No corporate franchise tax until you make at least $100k, Actually that limit is $1.11m. https://comptroller.texas.gov/taxes/franchise/ https://comptroller.texas.gov/taxes/franchise/
- tyingq 9y agoNote that it's revenue. You still owe franchise tax even if you're losing money.
- njharman 9y agoWhich is good incentive to make some, money that is.
- tyingq 9y agoIt's also an incentive not to incorporate/operate low margin businesses in Texas.
- adventured 9y agoThey have a clause to lessen that problem "Franchise tax is based on a taxable entity’s margin." https://comptroller.texas.gov/taxes/publications/98-806.php https://comptroller.texas.gov/taxes/publications/98-806.php
- Splendor 9y agoReading this story made me curious as to why software companies haven't made an effort to exclude sales in that area. It seems like that would at least get you out of that jurisdiction.
- omginternets 9y agoBecause, to a certain extent, it's cutting off your nose to spite your face. When you're an early-stage, cash-strapped business entity, doing business in TX probably seems like an acceptable risk.
- PatentTroll 9y agoAlso probably wouldn't work - see the "stream of commerce" idea discussed above
- monochromatic 9y agoHere's the actual opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-341_8n59.pdf https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/16pdf/16-341_8n59.pdf
- mayoff 9y agoHTML version here: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/16-341 https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/16-341 The page starts with the syllabus (a summary by the Reporter of Decisions), but in this case the opinion is not much longer than the syllabus.
- dangerlibrary 9y agoFor anyone looking for an ~20 minute intro to why this is a big deal and the impact it has on small tech companies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sG9UMMq2dz4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sG9UMMq2dz4 tl;dw: There are some over-broad patents on usage of very common technologies (using wifi or selling on the google play store are two egregious examples) that are being used as a bludgeon against small and medium sized firms that can't afford to defend themselves. It costs about $3 million to defend against such a suit, and the Eastern district is known for refusing to force plaintiffs to pay defendant's attorney's fees even if the suit is ultimately dropped.
- lightedman 9y agoSue the Eastern District for unequal application of the law. It's easily provable with the current track record.
- clamprecht 9y agoCan you even sue a court? Seems too good to be true.
- vivekd 9y agono - the best you can do is get it appealed to a higher court.
- kevindkeogh 9y agoNot in this case. You would need to have standing and a relevant claim to sue any person or firm. I would think it would pretty difficult to show sort of generalized claim about the injustices of the patent system. That is a political question, not a legal question.
- justinclift 9y agoClass action by victims of patent trolls?
- 9y ago
- blondie9x 9y agoFinally, a bit of justice.
- deckar01 9y agoThe federal judge(s?) in East Texas should still be investigated. This was a federally sponsored extortion racket. How can a judge be allowed to interpret patent law so much differently than the rest of the US for so long?
- bitmapbrother 9y agoThey really do. All they need to do is follow the money trail and see how it leads to their friends and family.
- bmelton 9y agoBecause, until there's precedent from the Supreme Court, any ambiguities in the law can be interpreted to practically any viable way of interpretation. Further, because of precedent, a single "weird" decision in a given district that comes early becomes effectively binding upon future decisions in that same circuit and lower circuits under its purview. So as to avoid politics, if the law says "Go to the nearby grocery store to buy some bread. Also, if they have eggs, buy 6," there are two logically valid interpretations (though there may be only one that parses correctly.) A programmer may go to the store, see the eggs, and buy 6 loaves of bread, or he may buy a loaf of bread and 6 eggs. If the 4th and 6th circuits decide differently, then those precedents are binding within those circuits and in lower circuits, so other cases using similar logic are also binding. Because it usually takes two circuit courts to disagree (a circuit split) before the Supreme Court will be inclined to hear a case like this, then it means at least two people need to be sued for getting the wrong thing, appeal, and appeal again. Court cases take years, and finding the exact right cases with the exact right plaintiffs takes even longer. Because of that, Circuit A can interpret a statute completely differently than Circuit B for a very long time indeed, and so long as there's some sound, logical underpinning, be completely okay in doing so (though the necessity for soundness is debatable.)
- glitcher 9y agoIt will be interesting to see if the patent trolls have now been incentivized into relocating to East Texas. This is definitely a step in the right direction, just curious to see what new unintended consequences might arise. EDIT: Ah I read it wrong, it's the defendant's incorporation location that takes priority. Thanks for the clarifications.
- inputcoffee 9y agoI thought you have to sue where the defendant is incorporated. Otherwise, why would the tech company get excited by the rule? See from the article: "The justices sided 8-0 with beverage flavoring company TC Heartland LLC in its legal battle with food and beverage company Kraft Heinz Co, ruling that patent infringement suits can be filed only in courts located in the jurisdiction where the targeted company is incorporated." [emphasis added]
- karmajunkie 9y agoMy read of the article is that they have to be incorporated where the (allegedly) infringing ("targeted" in the article) company is incorporated, so it wouldn't matter where the NPE is located. EDIT: added "allegedly"
- inputcoffee 9y agoFor those of us who don't understand how these things work, does someone know the answer to these questions: 1. So does this mean that almost all patent suits will be filed in Delaware? 1a. If that is correct, does someone know the TL;DR of the rules that make it a better choice than other places. (I mean, juries are juries). 2. Will tech companies now incorporate in non-Delaware states because there are even better rules somewhere else? Thanks for helping us understand the context.
- rayiner 9y agoThe patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. 1400, says: "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." This case holds that a corporate defendant "resides" where it is incorporated. But the second clause is still operative--you can still sue the company where it has a "regular and established place of business." As for Delaware, I don't think it's particularly plaintiff friendly so much as its not defendant friendly. If you sue a tech company in N.D. Cal. you're in the position of telling locals that a business that generates jobs and tax revenues for them did something wrong. Delaware, being the hub of all sorts of business litigation, sees things at a more abstract level. You're less likely to get a judge or jury in Delaware that comes in with a particular preconceived notion of X or Y being bad. They're going to look at the facts and they're going to look at the law and make a decision. That manifests itself in some practical ways. For example, some Delaware judges are loathe to permit summary judgment motions (decisions on the case before it goes to a jury). Many infringement questions are, according to the law, jury questions, but judges grant summary judgment anyway to save defendants the time and expense of a jury trial. Delaware judges don't really care about that.
- inputcoffee 9y agoWow, so if they can still be sued in a "regular and established place of business", does that dissuade startups from moving to, or starting in, Austin? Is Dell a target now because of the plaintiff-friendly juries. (That is what I hear, I don't know the details). Does this mean that startups should actually stay in Delaware to reduce the footprint of places they can get sued in? Doesn't sound like it changes much for the large tech companies who are all over the place anyway.
- MichaelBurge 9y ago> ruling that patent infringement suits can be filed only in courts located in the jurisdiction where the targeted company is incorporated. That should immediately put an end to the one district in Texas that has a cottage industry of patent lawyer tourism, right? I suppose it opens up the reverse problem: Find a court that never upholds patents, incorporate in the local town, and infringe everyone's patents with relative safety. Somehow that seems like a better problem to have, though.
- Fiahil 9y ago> Find a court that never upholds patents, incorporate in the local town, and infringe everyone's patents with relative safety. Yes, or -you know- incorporate in another country.
- vmarsy 9y agoIt seems to be a bad deal specifically for other countries companies which do businesses in the US. If you're incorporated in another country, I feel that patent Trolls can decide the state they want in the US to sue you about US law patent infringement on US territory. To protect itself a foreign company would need a local branch in the right state
- connorcpu 9y agoI think it would more be that you have to find an entire state where the juries are decidedly opposed to patent trolls, since you could still get sued anywhere in any valid jurisdiction within the state, right?
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- colanderman 9y agoNot quite the reverse. As another commenter noted, a large part of the problem is that that particular east Texas district didn't force plaintiff to pay defendants' costs when they (the plaintiff) lost. When you let the defendant choose the (presumably friendly) court, the cost of failed litigation shifts from the defendant to the plaintiff, who, unlike the defendant, has the option to appeal failed litigation. (But IANAL and I'm sure there are exceptions to this.)
- xenadu02 9y agoSCOTUS continues its extreme smack-down of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Couldn't happen to a nicer hive of scum and villainy.
- mtgx 9y agoIt seems inevitable that "specialist courts" become biased towards that specialization. Patent courts become biased towards patents, spy courts become biased towards spying, trade courts become biased towards more trade/less punishment for companies, and so on.
- TimTheTinker 9y agoInteresting. I bet it runs the same way in criminal court -- courts specializing in a particular type of crime would be more likely to rule in favor of the prosecutor in cases concerning that type of crime. (Or did I misunderstand what you were saying?)
- Gibbon1 9y agoReminds me of an essay written by a civil lawyer who got peripherally involved in a criminal proceeding. tl;dr: Criminal court is a total farce which would be funny except the people going to jail.
- devoply 9y agoCourts uphold decisions. The Court of Appeals was upholding a previous SCOTUS decision which it has now changed. Nothing smack down about it. They changed their mind. Which is good because now that judge in Texas and his sons can go diddle themselves.
- jchmbrln 9y agoNot according to this article (which I guess could be wrong): > The Federal Circuit denied the transfer by relying on one of its[i.e., the Federal Circuit's] precedents from 1990. > ...the high court's own precedent from 1957 held that patent suits are governed by a specific law allowing suits only where defendants are incorporated. SCOTUS didn't change its mind. It overturned/"smacked down" the Appeals Court's 1990 decision.
- bitmapbrother 9y agoThe enormity of this ruling cannot be overstated. East Texas is a patent troll haven and its economy is very reliant on that business. Short of abolishing software patents this is the next best thing.
- staticautomatic 9y agoYou might want to see the definition of "enormity"
- lh7777 9y agoInteresting -- I didn't know that enormity originally meant something very large _and_ bad or morally wrong -- but the GP's meaning is generally accepted today.
- everybodyknows 9y agoThereby giving us another synonym for enormousness, vastness, immensity, titanic ... And at the same stroke, purging the English language of its sole word with just that one distinctive, moral connotation. But we may yet hope to slow the slide down to Newspeak. At least one dictionary is willing to keep at the prescriptive mission: https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=enormity https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=enormity
- pklausler 9y agoAnd millions of illiterates think that "literally" means something other than "literally", too, but that doesn't make it correct, clear, or acceptable. Words mean things.
- grzm 9y agoWords mean things. Yes, they do. And language changes, as your parent points out. One of my pet peeves is those who use "steep learning curve" to mean something difficult to learn as opposed to its original meaning of something that's easily learned based on a skill vs time chart.[0] If I were to continually point it out when it's misused, people would get annoyed with me and the amount of change I would accomplish approaches zero. The language moves on. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning_curve https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Learning_curve Edited to fix typo.
- EGreg 9y agoWoohoo. This supreme court decision instantly kneecaps many patent trolls, not just in software. No more patent-friendly 9th circuit Texas district.
- dragonwriter 9y agoEDTX is in the 5th Circuit, not the 9th Circuit.
- grzm 9y agoPerhaps off-topic (but that's kind of the point I'm getting at): The image and caption displayed alongside the article doesn't appear to have anything directly to do with the article, does it? Here's the caption: > The application icons of Facebook, Twitter, and Google are displayed on an iPhone next to an earphone set in this illustration photo taken in Berlin, June 17, 2013. * I've read the article twice. I can tangentially see the use of a general tech photo as the article talks about tech companies being targeted by patent trolls. If that were the case, however, I would expect the caption to tie the two together, something like "Patent trolls often file suit against tech companies such as Apple, Google, Twitter, and Facebook in sympathetic jurisdictions." Including the earphone set just makes it even more weird. * Another meta tidbit: The caption is part of the image in the mobile version. The web version (http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-kraft-heinz-idUSKBN18I1SZ http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-kraft-heinz-idUS...) has the caption as text.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- cmurf 9y agoFTA:"patent infringement suits can be filed only in courts located in the jurisdiction where the targeted company is incorporated" Hello patent lawsuits in Delaware instead of east Texas!
- drzaiusapelord 9y ago>The justices sided 8-0 with beverage flavoring company TC Heartland LLC in its legal battle with food and beverage company Kraft Heinz Co, ruling that patent infringement suits can be filed only in courts located in the jurisdiction where the targeted company is incorporated. This no-name company probably just saved the tech industry from its own greed and short-sightedness. I imagine most lawsuits will happen in Delaware where it might be harder to find a radicalized pro-IP jury like they have in that East Texas district which has bizarrely turned itself into something of a cottage industry based on fees and fines patent abusers pay. Scratch my back and I'll scratch yours it seems. Perhaps regular verdicts of hundred(s) of millions of dollar settlements over trivial patents are behind us. Some sanity in patents would be a welcome change.
- yeukhon 9y agoAll companies are vulnerable to patent lawsuits and many are really just lawsuits created by this multi-million dollar industrial parasite called "patent troll". So this is not just a battle for the big coproations but also a battle many small businesses are fighting to win. I suggest you do an Interent to get a list of patent troll cases. The gist is someone can sue you for a workflow like authentication. Yeah that's pretty ridiculous right? Often patent trolls just want a settlement. Many businesses don't qant to deal with patent trolls they go for a settlement. US patent is easy to file in case you aren't aware.
- Brotkrumen 9y agoI guess it's become normalcy that the location where you are sued decides your fate, but it's so absurd.
- josaka 9y agoAccording to last year's stats, the tradeoff between Delaware and EDTX is that the patentee has a slightly lower chance of winning in Delaware (40%) than EDTX (54%), but when they do win, they get almost twice as much in damages ($17m vs. $9.4m). See https://www.pwc.com/us/en/forensic-services/publications/assets/2016-pwc-patent-litigation-study.pdf https://www.pwc.com/us/en/forensic-services/publications/ass...
- vmarsy 9y agoThat's an interesting report. The table only has 15 districts, but it looks like the best area against NPEs is Northern Illinois, and Northern California, with only a 13% success rate (vs. 48% success rate in EDTX) Texas Southern only has the lowest success rate for NPE (9%), but the median damages is $58m, compared to only $5m and $6m for the California and Illinois. It would be interesting to see the data for All district courts in the US. In those 15, California Northern looks the best in term of outcomes if you're likely to be at the mercy of NPEs, but I wonder how it compares to lets say Oregon, Western Texas, or Western Washington.
- blazespin 9y agoLikely there is a lot of bias in those stats that aren't skewed by the courts themselves but rather the cases brought to bare.
- adrianratnapala 9y agoSadly, take-away message from this underdetermined by the numbers you give. If the cases that come to all of these courts are roughly the same, then these data mean EDTX is only a little more patent friendly. But if it is true that EDTX is swamped by troll-plaintiffs with weak cases, then the fact that 54% of them steal win, is very damning.
- DannyBee 9y agoFor those curious, because jurisdiction is a fundamental limitation on court power (IE courts can't make rulings about things/people/etc they have no jurisdiction over), this will likely result in the immediate transfer or dismissal of ~400 cases pending in EDTX. Maybe more. (some defendants will have waived it by not objecting)
- monochromatic 9y agoVenue != jurisdiction.
- dragonwriter 9y agoThis ruling is about venue, not jurisdiction. Venue is less fundamental, and waivable; jurisdiction is fundamental, as you discuss.
- DannyBee 9y agoFirst: Yes, i misspoke, because i forgot this was TC heartland, which was the venue case. My brain appears to have melted this morning. Oh well. Second: Personal jurisdiction is also waivable Subject matter jurisdiction is not. In any case, the number i gave is actually the number where venue arguments have not been waived. There are about 400 where they have probably waived the venue argument, but have no real jurisdiction argument. Third, yes, the statute in question is the patent venue statute. However, you can't disconnect it that easily from personal jurisdiction, since the entire case was about the meaning of "“shall be deemed to reside, if a defendant, in any judicial district in which such defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to the civil action in question" It just turns out they already decided the jurisdiction part of that in previous holdings, and decided this venue statute did not really modify the general venue statute, which did not modify the definition of personal jurisdiction they decided before that, .. As for the transfers/dismissals, that part is also correct. See https://patentlyo.com/lawjournal/2017/03/imminent-outpouring-district.html https://patentlyo.com/lawjournal/2017/03/imminent-outpouring... So yes, less fundamental, but in these cases, venue and jurisdiction will now mostly be the same again (IE minimum contacts, etc)
- 24gttghh 9y ago> Justice Neil Gorsuch did not participate in the decision. It does not appear that Gorsuch has yet added opinions on any cases this year as a Supreme Court Justice. Has he been participating in new cases?
- tedajax 9y agoHe had one entirely predictable opinion actually: http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-gorsuch-court-20170522-story.html http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-gorsuch-court-2017... Scalia incarnate I suppose.
- foota 9y agoIs it typical for a judge to wait to make decisions when new to a court?
- dragonwriter 9y agoIt's typical for a judge not to take part in decisions relating to cases which were heard before he was on the court, even though the final decision was rendered after they joined.
- dragonwriter 9y agoCases heard on the merits with decisions were probably heard before Gorsuch was on the court, which is why he won't be part of the decision. New petitions for the court to hear cases which are being approved or denied he will participate in, which is why you will see him not on current substantive decisions, but on decisions to hear or not hear cases.
- BookmarkSaver 9y ago"Justice Neil Gorsuch joined the court after it heard arguments in the case and did not participate in the decision." The last line in the article.
- guelo 9y agoThere has been this weird insurrection by the Federal Circuit defying Supreme Court precedents to push for overly-strong intellectual property laws. Hopefully this is the beginning of the end of that insurrection. Personally I would like to see the Federal Circuit disbanded; the idea of a court with technically-specialized judges seems like a good idea but in practice we have ended up with a court filled with a bunch of biased patent-enforcing corporate litigators.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- PatentTroll 9y agoFirst of all, the Fed. Cir. doesn't only do patent cases! They also handle appeals from the court of federal claims (read: suing the government) and veterans matters among other stuff. But consider the reason why appellate jurisdiction was concentrated in the Fed Cir in the first place, imagine a court of appeals that went off the rails as much as the EDTX! The Fed Cir is a good thing, and I'd even advocate for a unified court of first instance for all patent infringement matters to avoid another EDTX happening in the future.
- faragon 9y agoPatent trolls should be prosecuted by the FBI, before they can even start harassing anyone, in my opinion.
- gph 9y agoGotta love these kinds of comments. Meaningless pandering to the pitchforks. Seriously, what are you even suggesting? That the FBI sniff out anyone planning to be a patent troll, then arrest them before they can even commit their crime? Drunk drivers should be prosecuted by the FBI before they can even get behind the wheel, in my opinion.
- faragon 9y agoLet's make patent trolling a crime, so an organization/company doing/preparing that crime could be stopped.
- johncolanduoni 9y agoAnd how would you define that crime, in a way that isn't so vague it just becomes a tool for either the government to arbitrarily prosecute people or for companies with solid IP lawyers to shield themselves from taking anyone else's IP seriously?
- faragon 9y agoIn the same way as you define the mafia: a business based on making profit from extortion.
- johncolanduoni 9y agoIf you include threatening to bring court cases as extortion, what's the point in having any laws that let you sue for damages? Or enforceable contracts? If my landlord starts neglecting my lease, do I now have to choose between just letting them get away with it and criminal charges? I wasn't expecting you to come up with a particularly great condition, but this one is particularly silly pitchfork-pandering.
- redm 9y agoWe have been sued by patent trolls at least seven times in the last ten years, all in Marshall, TX. We also sign onto the amicus brief for the TC Heartland case. This is a huge victory and what it means, in short, is that we won't get sued in Marshall, TX anymore. That's important because the venue is full of nepotism and extremely plaintiff-friendly. The longer version is we won't have to pay a "toll" to trolls who sue many other companies and us for ridiculous reasons like using OAuth or providing a link to images we host.
- staticautomatic 9y agoIndeed. Delaware and Northern California are about to get very, very busy.
- richdougherty 9y ago…but hopefully less busy than Marshall, TX has been.
- jjeaff 9y agoI'll wager it won't get crazy busy. The Texas court was letting anything and everything through. It won't take many summary judgements from courts in these jurisdictions before it is no longer profitable to troll. Districts like Delaware have a vested interest in being a business friendly place to file your corporation papers. They won't likely allow the district to become an easy place to file phoney patent suits. And in districts where the companies actually reside will be even less likely to let through these time wasters that damage their biggest employers and shrink their tax base.
- linkregister 9y agoWhy would federal judges care about the vested interests of the state of Delaware? I'm not trolling, I just don't get the argument.
- tonypace 9y ago
- 10165 9y agoFact: Certain federal judges were getting a disproportionate amount of patent cases. Consider: Over time, it is possible judges in other jurisdictions did not like this. (Why?) Question: Can anyone assume that these other judges not in, e.g., ED Tx, will not also be "plaintiff-friendly"? Consider: Being "plaintiff-friendly" can have the effect of more patent cases being filed in the judge's jurisdiction. Further consider that some judges may want more patent cases filed in their jurisdiction. As such, the headline may be prematurely drawing conclusions. Or not. Will patent litigation continue to rise, will it remain steady, or will it begin to fall?
- bkmartin 9y agoCall it coincidence, or nepotism, or maybe something worse... both of the judges that hear most of the patent cases in ED Tx have son's that represent most of the trolls in court. I would love to see the Justice Department or FBI investigate the financial relationships between the Judges and their sons. Are they jointly invested in anything that could be used to launder funds and provide kickbacks? Or are these just two fathers that are proud to see their kids get rich?
- rudyfink 9y agoTo my knowledge, the statement "both of the judges that hear most of the patent cases in ED Tx have son's that represent most of the trolls in court" is incorrect as written. The comment may be thinking of former judges, who retired in 2015 and 2011, but even for those judges I am skeptical of the "most of the" portion of the assertion. To be clear, the former judges had sons who practiced in ED Tex (and still do), but I would be surprised if they ever represented the most plaintiffs in a given year (either individually or in combination), though I admit I have not pulled the numbers to check. For the current judges in the district, I am only aware of one who has a child that is an attorney, and to my knowledge that child does not practice in ED Tex (and does not practice in patent cases at all).
- odbol_ 9y agoSo, they're moving all patent trials from Texas to Delaware (since 99% of tech companies are incorporated in Delaware). Doesn't seem like that big of an improvement.
- mtgx 9y agoIf the lawsuits have to be started in the appropriate jurisdiction, then why has the Supreme Court recently allowed the FBI to hack anyone in the country by modifying Rule 41? Why couldn't it follow the same jurisdiction-based logic?
- ww520 9y agoThe IPXL vs Amazon case probably has a bigger impact than this case. That case invalidated a large number of system plus method claim patents.
- swsieber 9y agoLong term, maybe. Short term, I think this has a bigger impact since even if method parents were invalidated, people could still scare tactic sue you with an invalid patent.
- ww520 9y agoIt's just a matter of educating people. That case was only dated to 2005. Most people probably don't know the implication. Once the simple test of system+method detection is applied, a large swap of BS patents can be thrown out at the first sight.
- rhino369 9y agoMost patents use "operable to" or "configured to" to get around mixed apparatus/method claim prohibition.
- myrandomcomment 9y agoYes! Finally. 8-0 even. Yes! All I wanted to say. Common sense finally.
- tqkxzugoaupvwqr 9y ago> The decision overturned a 2016 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, a Washington-based patent court, that said patent suits are fair game anywhere a defendant company's products are sold. Why didn't companies stop selling in patent troll friendly districts to avoid lawsuits? If you sell on the Internet, couldn't you just put a list of territorial exclusions in your terms and conditions?
- PatentTroll 9y ago1) the practical implications and difficulties in doing so, and 2) the "stream of commerce" theory which blurs the lines significantly. Even if a web site managed to exclude certain districts, it would be pretty easy to make the argument that they have a large enough economic impact that they also affect those in that district.
- Animats 9y agoMost of the trouble in the Eastern District of Texas was from one law firm, and one lawyer. A problem with weakening patents is that now, everybody wants to keep their technology secret. That leads to messy problems, such as the Waymo/Google lawsuit, when secrets leak. It also encourages overreaching employee non-compete agreements. With patents, what's proprietary technology is out there for everyone to see. With trade secrets, nobody knows what's going on.
- wahern 9y ago> With patents, what's proprietary technology is out there > for everyone to see. No, not in the modern era, and not for anything that relies on software. Disclosures in software patents are worse than useless. In the software realm the only thing that gets patented are obvious improvements on the state of the art that anybody familiar with the academic literature would stumble upon were they facing the same business problem. The real secret sauce is always in the implementation, which much of the time can't even be _divorced_ from the implementation because software is so complex. No company in their right mind would voluntarily disclose their implementing software. Even when it does leak it's usually difficult to repurpose and integrate anyhow. Reliance on trade secrets is going to become increasingly common because of the nature of the technology, regardless of patent policy.
- Radle 9y agoThis isn't really a solution. The court in the defenders courtyard will soon turn to be more likely to defend their neighbours.
- rodionos 9y agoIt's actually a big deal. We've been sued once and settled. It was Eastern Texas of course. There was no merit to the case, our patent application just matched one the keywords monitored by the NPE.
- Ta1388 9y agoRotten little cesspool. Rotten little scumbags.
- sathackr 9y agoI wonder if this opposite of this is going to happen now? -- A court district emerges that often rules against patent holders(and trolls) that suddenly becomes a haven for corporations to incorporate in that district to take advantage of the favorable court system? Not entirely unlike the popularity of Deleware corporations.
- PatentTroll 9y agoSome would argue that NDCAL is that venue (Silicon Valley and all)