> Further, if you look at the EU, patent cases there AFAIK are handled by specialty courts, and they tend to result in much cheaper, faster and more consistent

> Further, if you look at the EU, patent cases there AFAIK are handled by specialty courts, and they tend to result in much cheaper, faster and more consistent resolutions. The "cheaper and faster" aspect is more likely to be an artifact of civil law systems vs. adversarial systems (especially the absence of a jury in civil cases), since it is not specific to patent cases. And it's very much debatable whether they are more consistent. Also, European specialty courts are just as prone to regulatory capture. See, e.g., the fascinating holding of the EPO Board in "Auction Method/Hitachi": "The Board is aware that its comparatively broad interpretation of the term 'invention' in Article 52(1) EPC will include activities which are so familiar that their technical character tends to be overlooked, such as the act of writing using pen and paper." A holding that flew in the face of decades of European patent jurisprudence and was a fairly blatant end run around the requirements of article 52 of the EPC.