East Texas judge throws out 168 patent cases

Re:East Texas judge throws out 168 patent cases by AnimalMuppet on Thursday October 01, 2015 @05:43PM (#10314969)

You can file in any jurisdiction in which you have legal standing to file, which means any jurisdiction in which harm has been done to you. If you patent something, and someone infringes on it, and sells the infringing device nation-wide, this means that you can pick any jurisdiction nation-wide to sue them in.

Normally, you pick the one that you live in, so that you don't have to travel. But for patents, many people pick East Texas, since they're more likely to get the verdict they want there.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:East Texas judge throws out 168 patent cases by DannyBee on Thursday October 01, 2015 @07:36PM (#10315566)

"You can file in any jurisdiction in which you have legal standing to file, which means any jurisdiction in which harm has been done to you."

No. What you describe in the first sentence is basically what the old rule was, pre-1990 (28 USC 1400). The current rule is much worse (28 USC 1391).

Basically, you have the effect right, but the description of the pre-reqs wrong :)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:East Texas judge throws out 168 patent cases by AnimalMuppet on Thursday October 01, 2015 @07:53PM (#10315655)

A quick perusal does not lead me to see how it's now worse. Could you explain why you think that?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:East Texas judge throws out 168 patent cases by DannyBee on Thursday October 01, 2015 @08:06PM (#10315728)

http://patentlyo.com/patent/2007/04/patent_jurisdic.html does a good job of explaining.

Basically, the federal circuit's view of 28 USC 1391 is very different than 28 USC 1400.

If you look at cases prior to VE Holdings, they view 28 USC 1400, and in particular, the definition of "resides", very narrowly (to principal place of business/corp hq).

If you look at VE Holdings, and their view on 28 USC 1391, you can see it greatly expands the definition of "resides" to include essentially everywhere.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:East Texas judge throws out 168 patent cases by abduhl on Thursday October 01, 2015 @08:06PM (#10315725)

The old language of the law had a requirement for "regular and established place of business" before suit could be filed. The new language requires "personal jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced".

The key difference is in whether or not you must have an established place of business for a suit to be brought against you in a jurisdiction.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:East Texas judge throws out 168 patent cases by larrys on Thursday October 01, 2015 @05:55PM (#10315050)

"so that you don't have to travel."

Or perhaps better actually where your attorneys are located?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:East Texas judge throws out 168 patent cases by AnimalMuppet on Thursday October 01, 2015 @06:17PM (#10315165)

Typically your main attorneys are located where you are. If you're going to be in a lawsuit somewhere else, you probably want to hire an attorney (or more) there as well.

[ Parent | on HN ]