Posts Tagged ‘Eastern District of Texas’

Liability roundup

The patent court where you can’t check out?

Is the notorious E.D. Texas, unwilling to release its clutch, coming up with new rules that will let it keep hearing its enormous patent docket? “In a recent decision, Eastern District of Texas Judge Rodney Gilstrap developed a broadly-sweeping four-factor ‘totality’ test seemingly aimed at keeping patent-infringement suits in his jurisdiction.” [Ryley Bennett, WLF]

After SCOTUS rulings, less forum-shopping

Following the Supreme Court’s ruling in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods, cases filed in the Eastern District of Texas fell from 36% of all patent filings to 21% [Debra Cassens Weiss, ABA Journal] “Quick trials, big verdicts favoring consumers, and a state law that allows nonresidents to easily join mass litigations made St. Louis a destination of choice for attorneys going after companies that do business nationwide. Those days may be over” following the high court’s decision in Bristol-Myers Squibb [Margaret Cronin Fisk and Jef Feeley, Bloomberg]

More: Multidistrict litigation sought in more patent cases [Amanda Bronstad, Texas Lawyer]

Soon, tumbleweeds in E.D. Tex.? SCOTUS strikes at patent forum-shopping

This morning’s Supreme Court opinion in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods, hinging on what I described in January as a dry point of statutory interpretation, is likely to stand as a landmark win for defendants in patent litigation – and, on a practical level, for fairer ground rules in procedure. A unanimous Court (8-0, Thomas writing, Gorsuch not participating) rejected the broad reading of a venue statute by which the Federal Circuit had empowered lawyers to forum-shop disputes from all over the country into a few decidedly pro-plaintiff venues, above all the largely rural Eastern District of Texas. From here out, defendants can still be sued in a district such as E.D. Tex. if they have a regular and established place of business in it, but the decision is likely to shrink what I called in my January preview a “jackpot patent litigation sector… that shifts around billions of dollar.” By redirecting cases into more neutral venues, it should bring outcomes closer to reflecting cases’ actual merits, which would in turn do much toward restoring confidence in this sector of the law.

If Congress believes the Court has erred it is free to restore patent venue to a more shopper-friendly set of rules. But after the experience of recent years, it is unlikely that a Congress of either party or any likely political complexion will have an appetite for doing that.

[cross-posted from Cato at Liberty] More: Mike Masnick, TechDirt; Daniel Nazer, EFF. [& welcome SCOTUSBlog, Washington Post readers]

April 12 roundup

  • Judge denies motion to dismiss in Kentucky Trump rally violence suit, now try explaining what that means to some headline writers [Ken White, Popehat]
  • False liens, threats of “arrest” cited in indictment of eight Colorado sovereign citizens [Boulder Daily Camera]
  • How virtual reality (VR) may give rise to tort claims [2-part Volokh Conspiracy: first, second]
  • D.C. Circuit: no, the FCC can’t enable lawsuits over “unsolicited” faxes that recipients did in fact agree to [NFIB]
  • Economist seems glad free online Berkeley courses got saved; ADA fans in comment section urge his firing, call him felon [Alex Tabarrok, MargRev]
  • With one in four of all patent cases going to a single federal judge in east Texas, forum-shopping is a menace to judicial impartiality [Jonas Anderson, SSRN]

SCOTUS will look at patent forum-shopping

The Supreme Court has granted certiorari in the case of T.C. Heartland v. Kraft Foods, which turns on a minor detail of statutory interpretation but raises high stakes indeed: if the Court agrees that a 2011 enactment narrowed venue in patent suits, it could end the current arrangement in which plaintiffs are free to steer most such suits into just a few friendly jurisdictions. My write-up at Cato concludes:

My own suspicion is that not in a thousand years would a thoughtful deliberative process have entrusted the future care of intellectual property in America’s tech sector to the bench and bar of Marshall, Texas, population 24,501. But that’s in no way a reflection on the quality of the able if wily legal talent to be found in East Texas. It’s a reflection on the quality of the lawmakers in the U.S. Congress.

Supreme Court roundup

Supreme Court roundup

July 27 roundup

  • It’s against the law to run a puppet show in a window, and other NYC laws that may have outlived their purpose [Dean Balsamini, New York Post]
  • L’Etat, c’est Maura Healey: Massachusetts Attorney General unilaterally rewrites state’s laws to ban more guns [Charles Cooke, National Review]
  • Appeal to Sen. Grassley: please don’t give up on Flake-Gardner-Lee venue proposal to curtail patent forum shopping [Electronic Frontier Foundation, Elliot Harmon]
  • Oil spill claims fraud trial: administrator Ken Feinberg raised eyebrows at news that Mikal Watts “was handling claims from 41,000 fishermen.” [Associated Press, earlier]
  • By 70-30 margin, voters in Arizona override court ruling that state constitution forbids reduction in not-yet-earned public-employee pension benefits [Sasha Volokh]
  • Google, Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood appear to have settled their bitter conflict [ArsTechnica, earlier]

April 20 roundup