5 ms·

Would such a move be enough to not be under the jurisdiction of the Eastern District? Google doesn't have any store there yet that doesn't stop any patent troll

Would such a move be enough to not be under the jurisdiction of the Eastern District? Google doesn't have any store there yet that doesn't stop any patent troll.

dublo7 8y ago
Google's army of lawyers and cash reserves keeps patent trolls away. Pt try to go after little and medium companies who don't have the time or resources to fight back. It's way cheaper to write a check and make the problem go away, rather than fight via expensive lawyers or getting audited before the shakedown.
- the_jeremy 8y ago
  One would assume this to also be the case for apple. I definitely would not call them a "medium" company.
- icco 8y ago
  Apple has larger cash reserves than Google. Also Google has spent years buying companies for their patent portfolios to help prevent patent trolls. But also many tech companies are joining groups like LOT Net to help stop this as well. This is just defense in depth.
jjulius 8y ago
The following is an excerpt from the short article you're commenting on: >Residency is also a factor in determining the applicable venue of a patent infringement lawsuit, but in May 2017, the Supreme Court shifted precedent by ruling that a U.S. corporation resides only in its state of incorporation. Apple is incorporated in California, not Texas, satisfying this clause.
- zazen 8y ago
  The relevant excerpt is: >The plans are significant, as U.S. law states that patent infringement lawsuits may be filed "where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business." By closing its stores in Eastern Texas, Apple is ending its established place of business in the district. Moving a store from one district of Texas to another obviously doesn't relate to the question of the state of incorporation/residency.
  - Aloha 8y ago
    Having a location in that District is creating a nexus - you end up having legal residency in that location
    - zazen 8y ago
      IANAL, I can only go by what the article is saying. The article explicitly says "a U.S. corporation resides only in its state of incorporation". "Residency" in this sense is evidently not the same as "having an established place of business". Apple is avoiding having an "established place of business" in the eastern district.
      - Aloha 8y ago
        As from a page linked from within the article: "Despite the limitations imposed by TC Heartland, § 1400(b) offers an alternative path to a desired district “where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business.” Merely months after TC Heartland, which did not address this alternative, the Federal Circuit in In re Cray[3] rejected the Eastern District of Texas’ expansive four-factor test and set forth three requirements for determining whether a defendant has a “regular and established place of business” in the district: (1) there must be a physical place in the district; (2) it must be regular and established; and (3) it must be the place of the defendant." https://www.krcl.com/articles/patently-unpredictable-patent-venue-laws-after-tc-heartland-in-re-cray/ https://www.krcl.com/articles/patently-unpredictable-patent-...
        zazen 8y ago
        I can't tell what point you imagine you're making. That quote appears to just be a definition of "established place of business".
        fastball 8y ago
        The issue is that both of you chose to focus on one facet of a multi-faceted question and are now talking circles around each other. As Aloha pointed out, SCOTUS has ruled that a corporation only has residency in its state of incorporation, so Texas no longer qualifies for Apple (as it could before the 2017 ruling). You then pointed out that a case can be brought against a defendant if they have "an established place of business" in that district. These are two facets of the same problem, and a thorough answer to OC's question requires both parts. It wouldn't make any sense for Apple to close their locations before the SCOTUS ruling, because a plaintiff could argue that they had residency there, regardless of where their physical places of business happen to be. One is the what, the other is the "why now?" But I think Aloha's point was less "here is the entire explanation" and more "maybe if you RTFA you'd have the answer to your question". Which is what OC definitely should've done, rather than NOT reading the article and immediately going to the comments to ask a question which is answered in the article. Instead, you guys each answered half of the question and then started talking circles around one another.

Would such a move be enough to not be under the jurisdiction of the Eastern District? Google doesn't have any store there yet that doesn't stop any patent troll.

dublo7 8y ago

Google's army of lawyers and cash reserves keeps patent trolls away. Pt try to go after little and medium companies who don't have the time or resources to fight back. It's way cheaper to write a check and make the problem go away, rather than fight via expensive lawyers or getting audited before the shakedown.

the_jeremy 8y ago
One would assume this to also be the case for apple. I definitely would not call them a "medium" company.
icco 8y ago
Apple has larger cash reserves than Google. Also Google has spent years buying companies for their patent portfolios to help prevent patent trolls. But also many tech companies are joining groups like LOT Net to help stop this as well. This is just defense in depth.

jjulius 8y ago

The following is an excerpt from the short article you're commenting on: >Residency is also a factor in determining the applicable venue of a patent infringement lawsuit, but in May 2017, the Supreme Court shifted precedent by ruling that a U.S. corporation resides only in its state of incorporation. Apple is incorporated in California, not Texas, satisfying this clause.

zazen 8y ago
The relevant excerpt is: >The plans are significant, as U.S. law states that patent infringement lawsuits may be filed "where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business." By closing its stores in Eastern Texas, Apple is ending its established place of business in the district. Moving a store from one district of Texas to another obviously doesn't relate to the question of the state of incorporation/residency.
- Aloha 8y ago
  Having a location in that District is creating a nexus - you end up having legal residency in that location
  - zazen 8y ago
    IANAL, I can only go by what the article is saying. The article explicitly says "a U.S. corporation resides only in its state of incorporation". "Residency" in this sense is evidently not the same as "having an established place of business". Apple is avoiding having an "established place of business" in the eastern district.
    - Aloha 8y ago
      As from a page linked from within the article: "Despite the limitations imposed by TC Heartland, § 1400(b) offers an alternative path to a desired district “where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business.” Merely months after TC Heartland, which did not address this alternative, the Federal Circuit in In re Cray[3] rejected the Eastern District of Texas’ expansive four-factor test and set forth three requirements for determining whether a defendant has a “regular and established place of business” in the district: (1) there must be a physical place in the district; (2) it must be regular and established; and (3) it must be the place of the defendant." https://www.krcl.com/articles/patently-unpredictable-patent-venue-laws-after-tc-heartland-in-re-cray/ https://www.krcl.com/articles/patently-unpredictable-patent-...
      - zazen 8y ago
        I can't tell what point you imagine you're making. That quote appears to just be a definition of "established place of business".
        fastball 8y ago
        The issue is that both of you chose to focus on one facet of a multi-faceted question and are now talking circles around each other. As Aloha pointed out, SCOTUS has ruled that a corporation only has residency in its state of incorporation, so Texas no longer qualifies for Apple (as it could before the 2017 ruling). You then pointed out that a case can be brought against a defendant if they have "an established place of business" in that district. These are two facets of the same problem, and a thorough answer to OC's question requires both parts. It wouldn't make any sense for Apple to close their locations before the SCOTUS ruling, because a plaintiff could argue that they had residency there, regardless of where their physical places of business happen to be. One is the what, the other is the "why now?" But I think Aloha's point was less "here is the entire explanation" and more "maybe if you RTFA you'd have the answer to your question". Which is what OC definitely should've done, rather than NOT reading the article and immediately going to the comments to ask a question which is answered in the article. Instead, you guys each answered half of the question and then started talking circles around one another.