Re:East Texas judge throws out 168 patent cases
by btilly on Thursday October 01, 2015 @09:32PM
(#10316067)
I'd quibble with that. In most areas of law, you are not able to freely choose the venue. However patent law is not the only case where venue choice both is possible and popular.
For example a lawyer looking to file a class action lawsuit often factors the venue that they will wind up in into their choice of a lead plaintiff.
Re:East Texas judge throws out 168 patent cases
by WildUtah on Thursday October 01, 2015 @10:08PM
(#10316222)
Note that 28 USC §1400 is still in force; the Congress did not choose to remove the limits on patent case jurisdiction when it expanded other jurisdiction. It's right there in the US Code in black letters with no ambiguity.
But the notoriously corrupt patent appeals court -- the CAFC -- in its first decade of existence, abolished 28 USC §1400 by fiat.
The patent trolls went into business in East Texas soon after.
Re:East Texas judge throws out 168 patent cases
by DannyBee on Friday October 02, 2015 @01:40AM
(#10316911)
28 USC 1391 is actually very clear.
As much as i don't like the CAFC, their interpretation of it is completely and totally defensible.
Re:East Texas judge throws out 168 patent cases
by WildUtah on Friday October 02, 2015 @05:46PM
(#10321540)
So is 28 USC §1400. It was not repealed and plainly sets more particular jurisdiction for patent cases. What can Congress do now to re-institute the validity of it? It's already in the USC. Pass a new clause "and we really mean it!"? CAFC judges have contempt for the canons of statutory construction when entrepreneurial judging can benefit them personally.
Patents are governed by a specific jurisdictional statute that made this crazy.
The history is detailed well here: http://patentlyo.com/patent/2007/04/patent_jurisdic.html
THe TL;DR is:
It used to just be: Any civil action for patent infringement may be brought in the judicial district where the defendant resides, or where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business. 28 USC 1400
Then in 1990, Congress added: For purposes of venue under this chapter, a defendant that is a corporation shall be deemed to reside in any judicial district in which it is subject to personal jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced. 28 USC 1391
This eviscerated the previous limitations.
Personal jurisdiction is a little tricky to explain in a single post, but suffice to say, for internet companies most likely the target of trolls, they will generally be found to be subject to personal jurisdiction everywhere in the US.