East Texas judge throws out 168 patent cases • Hacker News Board

Re: East Texas judge throws out 168 patent cases

#21

Post by hga » Thu, Oct 01, 2015, 9:55 PM UTC

monochromatic wrote: post #13

hga wrote: post #3

Heh. More evidence for something I've been hearing for a while, the mass quantities of patent lawsuits in this "rocket docket" has had the side effect of educating everyone in it about this area of law, and it's getting harder to win a bad case.

This is a decision from Judge Gilstrap though, not from a jury. So it doesn't have anything to do with "educating everyone."

I was alluding to reports I've read that others, including jurors (I imagine the practical pool is fairly small), are also learning.

Re: East Texas judge throws out 168 patent cases

#22

Post by iraphael » Thu, Oct 01, 2015, 9:58 PM UTC

> the patent describes (...) routine tasks that could be performed by a human.

Is this a good way of defining when a patent is invalid? Isn't everything (i.e.: all computations) technically tasks that could be performed by humans alone given enough time?

Re: East Texas judge throws out 168 patent cases

#23

Post by anigbrowl » Thu, Oct 01, 2015, 9:59 PM UTC

saosebastiao wrote: post #6

Is it normal in other areas of the law for the plaintiff to be able to choose the (extremely favorable) district and judge for the case? Cause I can't imagine this happening in any other area of law, either civil or criminal. It just doesn't seem right, especially when the bias is so clearly observable. IANAL though...

Oh yes - and not just plaintiffs. Next time you are presented with a contract or user agreement, browse through it looking for the section about 'choice of law', and you'll notice that often you are asked to accept that the rules of a particular jurisdiction will apply in the event of any dispute.

Re: East Texas judge throws out 168 patent cases

#24

Post by adebtlawyer » Thu, Oct 01, 2015, 10:00 PM UTC

iraphael wrote: post #22

> the patent describes (...) routine tasks that could be performed by a human. Is this a good way of defining when a patent is invalid? Isn't everything (i.e.: all computations) technically tasks that could be performed by humans alone given enough time?

The key word is 'routine.' Patentable subject matter is supposed to be non-obvious, in other words, innovative.

Re: East Texas judge throws out 168 patent cases

#25

Post by devit » Thu, Oct 01, 2015, 10:01 PM UTC

tacon wrote: post #19

devit wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does "trolling PTAB" mean?

>Scott McKeown has identified what he believes are some instances of parties not involved in a case of patent litigation using the inter partes review (IPR) procedure to squeeze money out of patent owners who’ve won court cases but haven’t yet received a check. Since IPRs are conducted by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) you could call these operators “PTAB Trolls.” [1] http://www.ipnav.com/blog/ptab-trolls-g…

If patent trolls are moving to this, it seems to be a great development for society, since it makes patent trolling itself by both NPEs and PEs less profitable or unprofitable.

The legal system still seem to be broken, because it should offer a large reward to the "PTAB troll" to be paid by the patent owner so that instead of settling they would go through and invalidate the patent, while still getting money from the patent owner, who would also lose the money from the (non-)infringer.

Re: East Texas judge throws out 168 patent cases

#26

Post by protomyth » Thu, Oct 01, 2015, 10:02 PM UTC

iraphael wrote: post #22

> the patent describes (...) routine tasks that could be performed by a human. Is this a good way of defining when a patent is invalid? Isn't everything (i.e.: all computations) technically tasks that could be performed by humans alone given enough time?

you missed the second part: 'eDekka said its patent claims to "improve the functioning of technology," but Gilstrap ruled the claimed improvements simply weren't present. None of the eDekka claims met the standard for patenting, Gilstrap found.'

Re: East Texas judge throws out 168 patent cases

#27

Post by adebtlawyer » Thu, Oct 01, 2015, 10:02 PM UTC

saosebastiao wrote: post #6

Is it normal in other areas of the law for the plaintiff to be able to choose the (extremely favorable) district and judge for the case? Cause I can't imagine this happening in any other area of law, either civil or criminal. It just doesn't seem right, especially when the bias is so clearly observable. IANAL though...

No. You usually can't pick judges unless the forum is so tiny they only have one. You can't pick the forum unless it has jurisdiction over the matter.

Re: East Texas judge throws out 168 patent cases

#28

Post by bitwize » Thu, Oct 01, 2015, 10:07 PM UTC

monochromatic wrote: post #13

hga wrote: post #3

Heh. More evidence for something I've been hearing for a while, the mass quantities of patent lawsuits in this "rocket docket" has had the side effect of educating everyone in it about this area of law, and it's getting harder to win a bad case.

This is a decision from Judge Gilstrap though, not from a jury. So it doesn't have anything to do with "educating everyone."

The community of attorneys and jusges handling patent cases didn't have the technical know-how to understand the breadth and depth of fuckery-duckery going on in the realm of obvious software patents, allowing trolls to pull a bankable fast one.

Enough fast ones get pulled and they start catching on. That's who's being educated: the courts and legal community.

Re: East Texas judge throws out 168 patent cases

#29

Post by adebtlawyer » Thu, Oct 01, 2015, 10:08 PM UTC

Alex3917 wrote: post #5

hga wrote: post #3

Heh. More evidence for something I've been hearing for a while, the mass quantities of patent lawsuits in this "rocket docket" has had the side effect of educating everyone in it about this area of law, and it's getting harder to win a bad case.

All of the software patent trolls are pretty much going to be out of business in the next 12 - 18 months. It costs millions of dollars to run these operations, and most of them haven't been making any income for 2+ years now. All the smart trolls have moved on to trolling PTAB, and the dumb ones are just holding out hope that they either hit one last jackpot or else find some other way to monetize their portfolio.

> It costs millions of dollars to run these operations

Are you sure? Litigation isn't always expensive if you're doing it in-house.

Re: East Texas judge throws out 168 patent cases

#30

Post by AnimalMuppet » Thu, Oct 01, 2015, 10:17 PM UTC

larrys wrote: post #20

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

"so that you don't have to travel." Or perhaps better actually where your attorneys are located?

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.