Score one for the patent trolls: US appeals court says it's OK to shop for patent-friendly judges US appeal judges have shot down a bid to end the practice of so-called venue shopping in patent battles. That's where companies alleging infringement pick judges who typically back those bringing a case, which puts defendants at an immediate disadvantage. On Friday, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit rejected [ …
You do realize that beyond the patent lawsuits finding the appropriate venue is part of the legal process. So you can't say 'aha! this is a patent suit and you cannot pick your venue....'
The larger issue is changing the patent laws in general. Software patents should never have been allowed in the first place. But any meaningful attempts were shut down by Reid because he being backed by the trial attorney's association. That goes too for tort reform.
That's what needs to change.
Not picking your venue.
Presumably the principle at stake here is that it shouldn't matter where you sue because all judges are equally fabulous. Alternatively, the principle might be that by hearing all cases of a particular type, a court might eventually develop some expertise in handling them. Both seem to me to be reasonable (if contradictory) arguments, so I'm not terribly surprised by this decision and I don't expect any future court to ever turn round and say "You can't sue there, the judges are rubbish.".
The theory has been tried and found rather wanting. The real issue is suing in a carefully selected court is not justice. There are two basic solutions to the judge shopping: all cases must be filed in the defendant's district court or the case is filed, then randomly assigned to any district court. The first says you sue in the defendant's home turf and then must convince the judge that a change of venue is required (not likely). The second says the case is filed in your local district court but it may be assigned to any court in the country with no change of venue allowed.
The ability to select a court that is biased indicates that the system is broken
I think the more fundamental problem is that certain courts do appear to be showing bias.
If you didn't have any biassed courts, jurisdiction-shopping would pretty much[1] be a pointless exercise...
Vic.
[1] The only time this could make a difference is when one party is sufficiently financially disadvantaged by the selection of a court that he cannot fasibly continue. Courts should take note of this sort of thing.
One needs to remember that in the United States, the District Courts are under the precedence set by the Appeals Court they are part of. So if there is a certain way things are done, rulings that have not been overturned, or just a general sense of "expertise" based on a lawyer or firm's experience with a certain court, an entity will file a lawsuit in what they think is home turf.
The odd thing here is that unlike other types of litigation, patent lawsuits have their own Appeals Court, which is the Appeals Court for the Federal Circuit. They have established a set of ground rules for jurisdiction, and it seems to include a test that looks for both parties doing business in the jurisdiction. Heartland does not do direct sales, have offices, or even registered in Delaware, but apparently they have a couple of national contracts who ship the "accused products" into Delaware, which according to the court means that jurisdiction of the Delaware court is established. Seems like a bit of a stretch, but those are the rules.
Normally if two Appeals Courts come to different rulings for cases with similar facts (see the same-sex marriage and Obamacare cases), the Supreme Court will step in and adjudicate the matter, thereby setting nationwide precedence. But since there is no other Appeals Court with the jurisdiction to hear patent cases, I'm not sure how that would work. It seems like it would take some pretty strong evidence of misinterpretation or misrepresentation of Congressional intent to force the Supreme Court to step in. The only remedy here is specific legislation to override the precedence.
@Eric Olson - The "losing" side at the appeal court can appeal to the Nine Seniles. The Nine Seniles can pick and chose the cases they take so its not automatic to get a hearing. They do not need an appellate court split to take a case but the case (normally) has to have an appellate decision.
The "losing" side at the appeal court can appeal to the Nine Seniles. The Nine Seniles can pick and chose the cases they take so its not automatic to get a hearing. They do not need an appellate court split to take a case but the case (normally) has to have an appellate decision.
You're right in that it's not needed. However, the Supreme Court does get 7,000 or so appeals each year, hearing arguments in about 80 and issuing rulings without hearings for about 50 more. 130 out of 7,000 means your case must have some serious issues that require attention if there is no split among the Appeals Courts. Since the Appeals Court with jurisdiction over Patent cases relied on their own interpretation of precedent and legislative acts, the only route to change is getting Congress to change the rules of jurisdiction.
Most of the corporations in the United States are incorporated in Delaware in part because they have an excellent corporate law system that is fair and business friendly. Delaware has more corporations than people. When a corporation avoids Delaware courts I suspect there is something going on other than a concern about fairness of the decision.
Er.... wait a minute....
Remember that SCO was incorporated in Delaware and the case against IBM still has not been finally put down. Yeah, I know the case was in Utah but the rump of SCO is still breathing in Delaware.
SCO filed Suit in 2003.
So Delaware must be where the crap companies go to be incorporated. They know full well that their courts will protect them for ever and a day (or as long as the Judge re-election campain contributions keep rolling in).
Justice US Style : As good as how much you can pay for it.
anon just because I have to do business in Delaware.
"Most of the corporations in the United States are incorporated in Delaware in part because they have an excellent corporate law system that is fair and business friendly. Delaware has more corporations than people. When a corporation avoids Delaware courts I suspect there is something going on other than a concern about fairness of the decision."
And many corporations are registered in the Cayman Islands because of the nice weather? I think you'll find it's the lack of transparency that's the reason most of them are there.
This isn't a patent troll case - in this case both defendant and plaintiff are real companies that manufacture and distribute goods, and have done so for many years. This is a straight up infringement case.
Also in this case both the Defendant and the Plaintiff are in Indiana -- yet the Plaintiff wants to sue in Delaware court. That was the issue here. Convention holds that you sue in the district where the defendant resides.
(disclaimer: I too am in Indiana - which is why this case caught my attention)
While no -ism fully describes the complexities of the real world economy in America right now, crony capitalism is a good start.
Heavy collusion between corporations and state, distorting the legal system so that big businesses have preferential access to the law, over small businesses and individuals.
The classic left/right argument is about what extent to redistribute wealth, but that argument is kind of moot if all the wealth is basically being looted anyway.
Fascism would be the correct description and has been since the U.S. Supreme Court grant corporations equal protection under the law in 1886. Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company, 118 US 394.
This more or less gave corporations early person-hood, a condition not needed as the whole point of incorporation was limited liability in the first place.
My little joke about Corporate Communist Capitalism is only to make people aware that American corporations have far too much power and little real* accountability and have successfully obscured this fact with bingo word salad.
*beyond fines and and regulations and audits, they can literally kill people and still stay in business while the leaders can escape any jail time as long as they were not personally caught stealing or committing outlandish fraud. Regular fraud gets a stern warning.
https://www.newscientist.com/article/2084755-computer-generates-all-possible-ideas-to-beat-patent-trolls/
I did similar with copywritten works - a hot cup of tea mapped to a dictionary produces any written work when searched for. Turned out someone had beaten me to it!
This post has been deleted by its author
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
