3 ms·

Whether or not they fairly distribute cases within the district has no bearing on the district's rules as to how patent cases proceeds, so I don't think you are

Whether or not they fairly distribute cases within the district has no bearing on the district's rules as to how patent cases proceeds, so I don't think you are really responding to the point I've made, and in not doing so, you are evidencing the kind of reflexive downvoting I'm talking about. "I read there are problems with the courts" Okay? It doesn't seem like you actually read my post given your response. >and not just "judge who actually wants to do work, not avoid responsibility" like you claim without any particular substantiation. Are you a patent litigator? It's not a secret in the patent litigation field that many judges are acrimonious to patent cases. I'm not sure what you want me to provide for you as evidence aside from my own personal experience. Also, this is easily inferred by the fact that many litigants, including defendants, are happy to stay in those two districts. I've seen it myself. Generally in my experience, the defendants that want to leave those districts are usually the largest tech companies who seek to move the case to their more-friendly local districts, which is just another form of judge shopping. I'm not sure why that form of judge shopping is comforting to you. Sometimes these defendants win their transfer motions, sometimes they lose. Certainly US federal patent jurisdiction laws/rules and jurisdiction laws/rules in general are made to avoid the need to bring a case against a defendant in front of their friendly local judge. Once again, I would appreciate a substantive reply to these points. Anyway, here's an article about why patent owners aren't litigating their cases when district court judges are holding motions to dismiss before markman hearings, and that many judges are acrimonious to patent cases: https://ipwatchdog.com/2021/11/04/patent-litigation-in-the-united-states-1980-to-2020/id=139510/ https://ipwatchdog.com/2021/11/04/patent-litigation-in-the-u... Do you have any argument as to why a motion to dismiss should be heard before a markman hearing occurs? That'd be substantive. It's certainly fallacious to say that all the cases brought in those districts are by trolls. The districts are friendly to patent litigation in general, that's why the trolls go there. What rules or conduct do you suppose specifically make the districts friendly to trolls in particular? This should be easy for you to answer given the numerous articles you've read about the "interventions" made.

FireBeyond 2y ago
Alright, I'll bite. Your opinion and perspective is one that you don't support with actual evidence, just a claim - "judges are acrimonious to patent cases". Actually, the evidence you do cite is an "IP advocacy group" that basically appears to be one attorney who has practiced patent law his career, who posts some stats that show, shockingly enough, that court cases went down about 20% at the start of COVID, and decides that that's proof that patentholders are frustrated with the bench. But even he contradicts you: > The precipitous decline in patent cases commenced beginning in 2016 is likely due to a capitulation by many patent owners who finally started to come to terms with the fact that many legacy patents were simply not going to survive the Federal Circuit’s restrictive interpretation of the Alice/Mayo framework regarding patent eligibility. That doesn't sound like "judges hate patent law". > Also, this is easily inferred by the fact that many litigants, including defendants, are happy to stay in those two districts. You realize that, actually, many defendants are NOT happy to stay in those districts, and that that district routinely denies motions to change venue, motions which are repeatedly successfully challenged in Federal Circuit: > The decision (In re Fedex Corporate Services (In re Fedex), No. 2022-156, slip op. at 9 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 19, 2022)) is the next in an increasingly long line of mandamus decisions in which the Federal Circuit has reversed or remanded decisions from Texas district courts on this issue, and suggests that the Federal Circuit will continue to carefully scrutinize these decisions on transfer motions going forward. > Sometimes these defendants win their transfer motions, sometimes they lose. In fact, overwhelmingly, they lose. Since 2017, over 350 motions to transfer venue, based on the plaintiff not being able to show a presence in the Eastern District were filed, motions which were denied 92% of the time by a single judge. > Out-of-town companies began renting empty offices, in the hopes of appearing to have East Texas ties. Source: https://www.dallasnews.com/business/technology/2017/05/23/how-patent- https://www.dallasnews.com/business/technology/2017/05/23/ho... suits-shaped-a-small-east-texas-town-before-supreme-court-s-ruling/ Businesses knew this was problematic, so were doing things like this. The thing is, at this point, your contention that there is nothing wrong with how the Eastern District operates - a contention that is not tenable with multiple investigations that have resulted in multiple changes to how the District handles patent cases, and dozens of explorations. > Academic literature has generally adopted a dim view of granting plaintiffs the ability to select their judge. The legal system apparently shares the same disdain; there are many examples of attorneys being sanctioned because their actions were construed as an attempt to manipulate the system to receive a more favorable judge. Previous scholarship discusses the perniciousness of judge shopping for the legal system and argues that judge shopping is one of the advantages that courts can dangle before potential plaintiffs in an effort to compete for their litigation business. > https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/facsch_lawrev/489/ https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/facsch_lawrev/489/ > Generally in my experience, the defendants that want to leave those districts are usually the largest tech companies who seek to move the case to their more-friendly local districts, which is just another form of judge shopping. That depends. It can be, certainly - and that is equally problematic. But if it's to get the case in a district that has a nexus for at least one of the two entities (i.e. not an empty office rented by the plaintiff a week before they filed suit), then I don't see it problematic. > In 2019 a federal judge named Alan Albright gave a presentation to a group of lawyers. His courthouse in Waco, Texas, where he is the only judge, sits near a sweet shop. The talk was called “Why You Should File Your Next Patent Case Across the Street from the ‘Hey Sugar’”. > The intellectual-property lawyers who heard his pitch were apparently persuaded. Less than two years after being appointed to the bench, Judge Albright had nearly 20% of the country’s patent cases, according to Lex Machina, a legal-analytics firm. By 2021, he had 23%. Source: https://www.economist.com/united-states/2024/04/16/how-two-small-texas-towns-became-the-patent-law-centre-of-america https://www.economist.com/united-states/2024/04/16/how-two-s... A judge, any judge, should not be holding presentations to lawyers about "why you should bring your cases to me". Especially when those lawyers are exclusively IP litigants. > It's certainly fallacious to say that all the cases brought in those districts are by trolls I agree. Which is why I never said that, or hinted at that. > Do you have any argument as to why a motion to dismiss should be heard before a markman hearing occurs? That'd be substantive. I would want further information. I've never seen anything substantive that claims that such procedural matters are the chief concern of people who have an issue with the Eastern District. Usually, it's things like the above. > This should be easy for you to answer given the numerous articles you've read about the "interventions" made. I have responded to your comments with objectivity, and not felt a need to resort to sneering and snark.
- freejazz 2y ago
  Please, your first response to me was full of sneer and snark. Don't cry about it now. I don't see any response to my points about markman hearings and the motion to dismiss deadlines, just more and more about how litigants shouldn't select judges (but it is somehow okay for big tech companies to do it!) when the western district has already changed its case assignment rules... >I would want further information. I've never seen anything substantive that claims that such procedural matters are the chief concern of people who have an issue with the Eastern District. Usually, it's things like the above. You don't know what you are talking about because you don't litigate patents and you just consume pearl clutching media from anti-patent sources. Patent plaintiffs go to those jurisdictions for that reason, Albright isn't particularly friendly to Plaintiffs, but you don't realize that, you just think they chose them because.... you can't explain why. Albright was a big law patent partner, working almost exclusively for the defense. It'd be nice if you could actually get on point here. Do you have any evidence that shows Albright produces plaintiff-favorable outcomes? No, just pearl clutching.

FireBeyond 2y ago

Alright, I'll bite. Your opinion and perspective is one that you don't support with actual evidence, just a claim - "judges are acrimonious to patent cases". Actually, the evidence you do cite is an "IP advocacy group" that basically appears to be one attorney who has practiced patent law his career, who posts some stats that show, shockingly enough, that court cases went down about 20% at the start of COVID, and decides that that's proof that patentholders are frustrated with the bench. But even he contradicts you: > The precipitous decline in patent cases commenced beginning in 2016 is likely due to a capitulation by many patent owners who finally started to come to terms with the fact that many legacy patents were simply not going to survive the Federal Circuit’s restrictive interpretation of the Alice/Mayo framework regarding patent eligibility. That doesn't sound like "judges hate patent law". > Also, this is easily inferred by the fact that many litigants, including defendants, are happy to stay in those two districts. You realize that, actually, many defendants are NOT happy to stay in those districts, and that that district routinely denies motions to change venue, motions which are repeatedly successfully challenged in Federal Circuit: > The decision (In re Fedex Corporate Services (In re Fedex), No. 2022-156, slip op. at 9 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 19, 2022)) is the next in an increasingly long line of mandamus decisions in which the Federal Circuit has reversed or remanded decisions from Texas district courts on this issue, and suggests that the Federal Circuit will continue to carefully scrutinize these decisions on transfer motions going forward. > Sometimes these defendants win their transfer motions, sometimes they lose. In fact, overwhelmingly, they lose. Since 2017, over 350 motions to transfer venue, based on the plaintiff not being able to show a presence in the Eastern District were filed, motions which were denied 92% of the time by a single judge. > Out-of-town companies began renting empty offices, in the hopes of appearing to have East Texas ties. Source: https://www.dallasnews.com/business/technology/2017/05/23/how-patent- https://www.dallasnews.com/business/technology/2017/05/23/ho... suits-shaped-a-small-east-texas-town-before-supreme-court-s-ruling/ Businesses knew this was problematic, so were doing things like this. The thing is, at this point, your contention that there is nothing wrong with how the Eastern District operates - a contention that is not tenable with multiple investigations that have resulted in multiple changes to how the District handles patent cases, and dozens of explorations. > Academic literature has generally adopted a dim view of granting plaintiffs the ability to select their judge. The legal system apparently shares the same disdain; there are many examples of attorneys being sanctioned because their actions were construed as an attempt to manipulate the system to receive a more favorable judge. Previous scholarship discusses the perniciousness of judge shopping for the legal system and argues that judge shopping is one of the advantages that courts can dangle before potential plaintiffs in an effort to compete for their litigation business. > https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/facsch_lawrev/489/ https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/facsch_lawrev/489/ > Generally in my experience, the defendants that want to leave those districts are usually the largest tech companies who seek to move the case to their more-friendly local districts, which is just another form of judge shopping. That depends. It can be, certainly - and that is equally problematic. But if it's to get the case in a district that has a nexus for at least one of the two entities (i.e. not an empty office rented by the plaintiff a week before they filed suit), then I don't see it problematic. > In 2019 a federal judge named Alan Albright gave a presentation to a group of lawyers. His courthouse in Waco, Texas, where he is the only judge, sits near a sweet shop. The talk was called “Why You Should File Your Next Patent Case Across the Street from the ‘Hey Sugar’”. > The intellectual-property lawyers who heard his pitch were apparently persuaded. Less than two years after being appointed to the bench, Judge Albright had nearly 20% of the country’s patent cases, according to Lex Machina, a legal-analytics firm. By 2021, he had 23%. Source: https://www.economist.com/united-states/2024/04/16/how-two-small-texas-towns-became-the-patent-law-centre-of-america https://www.economist.com/united-states/2024/04/16/how-two-s... A judge, any judge, should not be holding presentations to lawyers about "why you should bring your cases to me". Especially when those lawyers are exclusively IP litigants. > It's certainly fallacious to say that all the cases brought in those districts are by trolls I agree. Which is why I never said that, or hinted at that. > Do you have any argument as to why a motion to dismiss should be heard before a markman hearing occurs? That'd be substantive. I would want further information. I've never seen anything substantive that claims that such procedural matters are the chief concern of people who have an issue with the Eastern District. Usually, it's things like the above. > This should be easy for you to answer given the numerous articles you've read about the "interventions" made. I have responded to your comments with objectivity, and not felt a need to resort to sneering and snark.

freejazz 2y ago
Please, your first response to me was full of sneer and snark. Don't cry about it now. I don't see any response to my points about markman hearings and the motion to dismiss deadlines, just more and more about how litigants shouldn't select judges (but it is somehow okay for big tech companies to do it!) when the western district has already changed its case assignment rules... >I would want further information. I've never seen anything substantive that claims that such procedural matters are the chief concern of people who have an issue with the Eastern District. Usually, it's things like the above. You don't know what you are talking about because you don't litigate patents and you just consume pearl clutching media from anti-patent sources. Patent plaintiffs go to those jurisdictions for that reason, Albright isn't particularly friendly to Plaintiffs, but you don't realize that, you just think they chose them because.... you can't explain why. Albright was a big law patent partner, working almost exclusively for the defense. It'd be nice if you could actually get on point here. Do you have any evidence that shows Albright produces plaintiff-favorable outcomes? No, just pearl clutching.