Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

East Texas judge throws out 168 patent cases

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–87 of 87 posts

Re: East Texas judge throws out 168 patent cases

#81

Post by throwawaykf05 »

magicalist wrote: post #65
throwawaykf05 wrote: post #40

If you look past the common rhetoric against ED Texas about bring patentee-friendly and look at the data, this is not really surprising. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1597919 ED Texas did get a bad rap for being plaintiff-friendly early on, but that didn't last long at all, as the data shows. These days it seems to be favored for being a relatively fast docket and having judges with more patent-e…

> These days it seems to be favored for being a relatively fast docket and having judges with more patent-expertise. Uh, neither of those are really true, the fast docket is especially wrong. In fact, there are a host of reasons why the Eastern District is popular (your source is wildly out of date due to changes since 2010). There's a reason that 44% of all patent cases for the first half of 2015 were filed in the d…

Have the statistics changed since 2010? While the EFF goes on about "plaintiff-friendly" rules, it presents no link to any statistics on the win rates or settlement rates. It mentions statistics on how ED Texas rules differently on different motions, but what matters are the outcomes compared to other districts.

Even then the differences in statistics on rulings I believe can be explained by the relative sophistication of the plaintiffs who file there -- mostly patent trolls. Since trolls typically assert patents they acquire, they will go for "better" patents, and they can simply choose different patents to acquire when something like Alice comes along. Practicing entities have no such luxury and are stuck with the patents they were issued.

Lemley (the author I linked previously) and others actually have studies on these things. I'll have to dig them back up.

Re: East Texas judge throws out 168 patent cases

#82

Post by adebtlawyer »

monochromatic wrote: post #78
adebtlawyer wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

In a post-Alice world, anyway. Pre-Alice, patentable subject matter and nonobviousness were separate requirements.

I'm not familiar with Alice. As far as I know, you're right, non-obviousness is different than patentable subject matter. Sorry to elide them together like that.

I never claimed to be patent lawyer.

Re: East Texas judge throws out 168 patent cases

#83

Post by monochromatic »

adebtlawyer wrote: post #82
monochromatic wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a post-Alice world, anyway. Pre-Alice, patentable subject matter and nonobviousness were separate requirements.

I'm not familiar with Alice. As far as I know, you're right, non-obviousness is different than patentable subject matter. Sorry to elide them together like that. I never claimed to be patent lawyer.

Not a problem, you did just as well as the U.S. Supreme Court. (Alice is a mess in my opinion, if you couldn't tell--it mixes two requirements that were supposed to completely separate.)

Re: East Texas judge throws out 168 patent cases

#84

Post by saosebastiao »

FireBeyond wrote: post #68
cafard wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember reading of an oil company waiting until a tanker was in New York harbor to file some sort of case it thought better heard in New York.

Odd that an oil company with enough size to own a tanker wouldn't have an office in NYC.

I think you'd be surprised at how low of an overhead some shipping companies run. I've visited the US headquarters of a publicly traded Greek dry bulk shipping company with a market cap in the hundreds of millions of dollars...it was in a strip mall in Richmond CA, and it looked like a small local accounting office with a staff of maybe 10 people.

Re: East Texas judge throws out 168 patent cases

#85

Post by magicalist »

monochromatic wrote: post #75
magicalist wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> These days it seems to be favored for being a relatively fast docket and having judges with more patent-expertise. Uh, neither of those are really true, the fast docket is especially wrong. In fact, there are a host of reasons why the Eastern District is popular (your source is wildly out of date due to changes since 2010). There's a reason that 44% of all patent cases for the first half of 2015 were filed in the d…

The fact that it has patent-savvy judges is absolutely a reason why many plaintiffs file there. Ignorant judges are unpredictable.

But there aren't especially patent-savvy judges there when compared to many other districts, like the District of Delaware or the Eastern District of Virginia, both also very experienced as patent-litigating districts of choice.

Re: East Texas judge throws out 168 patent cases

#86

Post by magicalist »

throwawaykf05 wrote: post #81
magicalist wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> These days it seems to be favored for being a relatively fast docket and having judges with more patent-expertise. Uh, neither of those are really true, the fast docket is especially wrong. In fact, there are a host of reasons why the Eastern District is popular (your source is wildly out of date due to changes since 2010). There's a reason that 44% of all patent cases for the first half of 2015 were filed in the d…

Have the statistics changed since 2010? While the EFF goes on about "plaintiff-friendly" rules, it presents no link to any statistics on the win rates or settlement rates. It mentions statistics on how ED Texas rules differently on different motions, but what matters are the outcomes compared to other districts. Even then the differences in statistics on rulings I believe can be explained by the relative sophisticati…

> Have the statistics changed since 2010?

Oh yes: http://www.houstonchronicle.com/business/article/Patent-case...

> Even then the differences in statistics on rulings I believe can be explained by the relative sophistication of the plaintiffs who file there -- mostly patent trolls

Absolutely trolls love it there. No clue what that has to do with your original point, though: the venue is absolutely advantageous to the plaintiffs and the rocket docket is a thing of the past.

Re: East Texas judge throws out 168 patent cases

#87

Post by WildUtah »

DannyBee wrote: post #79
WildUtah wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

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.
Post reply on HN