3 ms·

For those curious, because jurisdiction is a fundamental limitation on court power (IE courts can't make rulings about things/people/etc they have no jurisdicti

For 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 ago
Venue != jurisdiction.
dragonwriter 9y ago
This ruling is about venue, not jurisdiction. Venue is less fundamental, and waivable; jurisdiction is fundamental, as you discuss.
- DannyBee 9y ago
  First: 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)

monochromatic 9y ago

Venue != jurisdiction.

dragonwriter 9y ago

This ruling is about venue, not jurisdiction. Venue is less fundamental, and waivable; jurisdiction is fundamental, as you discuss.

DannyBee 9y ago
First: 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)