U.S. Supreme Court limits where patent-infringement cases can be filed

MacDailyNews ^ | Monday, May 22, 2017 4:51PM

[Swordmaker]

U.S. Supreme Court limits where patent-infringement cases can be filed; decision could limit venue-shopping

“The Supreme Court on Monday limited the ability of patent holders to bring infringement lawsuits in courts that have plaintiff friendly reputations, a notable decision that could provide a boost to companies that defend against patent claims,” Brent Kendall reports for The Wall Street Journal.

“The high court, in an opinion by Justice Clarence Thomas, ruled unanimously that a lower court has been following an incorrect legal standard for almost 30 years that made it possible for patent holders to sue companies in almost any U.S. jurisdiction,” Kendall reports. “Instead, the Supreme Court said, claims of patent infringement must be brought in the state where a corporate defendant is incorporated.”

Kendall reports, “The ruling could significantly shift patent-infringement lawsuits out of some federal districts, including in east Texas, that have been home to large numbers of patent cases because patent holders believed those courts provided a favorable venue for their claims.”

[MrEdd]

They should be required to bring suit where they reside.

[arrogantsob]

Delaware’s lawyers should make out like bandits.

[Swordmaker]

The Rocket Docket is dead! Supreme Court Ruling kills the Rocket Docket venue shopping for infringement suits! — PING!

Rocket Docket DOA!
Ping!

The latest Apple/Mac/iOS Pings can be found by searching Keyword "ApplePingList" on FreeRepublic's Search.

If you want on or off the Mac Ping List, Freepmail me

[who_would_fardels_bear]

...or companies will start moving their HQs to patent-troll-hating states.

[Bayard]

And bribe local judges

[dayglored]

Great news!

[House Atreides]

Fantastic news. The shake-down artists in the legal profession will go into mourning.

[Edward.Fish]

Fantastic news. The shake-down artists in the legal profession will go into mourning.

If you think that's fantastic, just imagine what it would be like if we followed the Constitution.
The authority for patent- and copyright-law is given in Art 1, Sec 8, with this clause: To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

All that one has to do from there is realize that a corporation, being a separate and distinct legal entity, cannot be an author or inventor but, at most, must commission actual authors/inventors for their work.

Yeah, imagine the impact that would have.

[martin_fierro]

Interesting presentation here
https://youtu.be/sG9UMMq2dz4

[Lurkina.n.Learnin]

So your saying a company that spends billions of dollars developing something should have no right to pate t it?

[Edward.Fish]

So your saying a company that spends billions of dollars developing something should have no right to pate t it?

Yep; that's what the Constitution says. Period.
Corporations aren't natural people with God-given rights; they are legal entities created by law: as such they are wholly and utterly bound by the law and have nothing which extends beyond law — a natural person does.

Besides, the whole point of a corporation is to provide insulation and protection of investors from the actual operations… as well as to provide continued operations apart from the original investors. (In other words, like Disney, a company can extend beyond the lifetime of those who created it.) — As far is the law is concerned it is a completely and entirely separate legal entity from not only the investors but the employees too.

You can't say that corporations are people and then extend to them rights specifically reserved for a particular class of persons (authors and inventors) which they manifestly cannot be: a corporation cannot write nor invent anything, thus it cannot be an author or inventor.

(All it can do is employ actual authors and inventors; this used to be called commissioning and the commissioner, while afforded privledges to the work, is most assuredly NOT the author or inventor.)

[Auntie Mame]

Thanks, that was VERY interesting.

[arrogantsob]

Most have been incorporated in Delaware because the laws there are favorable to corporations. But you are right that could change.

[zeugma]

I had to dig around a bit to locate the actual decision. The case is 16-341 TC Hearland LLC. v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC for those who like to read through these things themselves, so as to avoid media spin filters.

[Swordmaker]

Thanks for posting that decision. Justice Thomas did an excellent job of explaining the reasoning of the Court.

[FreedomNotSafety]

Looks like you built a strawman of an argument. I’ve never seen a patent issued to a corporation maybe you can cite one. I’ve seen plenty of patent rights assigned to corporations by patent holders some of whom worked for that same corporation and in fact the employees where paid to do just that.

Certainly nothing unconstitutional in that.

[Edward.Fish]

Looks like you built a strawman of an argument. I’ve never seen a patent issued to a corporation maybe you can cite one. I’ve seen plenty of patent rights assigned to corporations by patent holders some of whom worked for that same corporation and in fact the employees where paid to do just that.

Certainly nothing unconstitutional in that.

Here is a patent, from patft.uspto.gov, notice that the assignee (Ternarylogic LLC) is different from the Inventor (Lablans; Peter).

This is the reservation of exclusive rights which the Constitution empowers Congress to pass, but the 'person' having these rights (this is to say "being assigned the patent") is not the inventor. (This is illustrated in the example given.)

But, let us assume that your assertion is correct: if I were to implement error-correction from a multi-valued cyclic code (what the cited patent covers) then who would have the standing to sue? Obviously Ternarylogic LLC, to whom the patent is assigned.

And there we see the problem: Ternarylogic LLC is a completly separate and distinct legal entity than Peter Lablans (whom the patent officially recognizes as the inventor) — yet these exclusive rights, as secured by the patent [and patent law], are held by Ternarylogic LLC.

And there we have a proof by contradiction. (Ternarylogic LLC ≠ Peter Lablans)

[FreedomNotSafety]

You have not proved a thing except that only individuals can be granted a patent. Now you wish to shift the argument to unconstitutional usage of the rights granted to a patent holder. If I hold a patent it is my property and I should I have the right to use it as I see fit and that includes selling the rights to a corporation. It seems you argument is about the wisdom of having and even encouraging corporations and not patents.

I will split hairs and say there is a difference between a government chartered corporation and and a cooperation in the sense of two or more individuals joining together for a common cause.

Government grants of incorporation are for the benefit of the government or a long time ago for the king. The would not be part of a free enterprise system which is ironic since most all of the ills blamed on free markets are blamed on corporations.

So I agree to ending government grants of incorporation but so long as they exist restricting individuals property rights in dealing with them.

[Edward.Fish]

If I hold a patent it is my property and I should I have the right to use it as I see fit and that includes selling the rights to a corporation.

Question: with this hypothetical patent that you hold, are you the inventor?

If you are not the inventor, then the Congress has no power to enact laws concerning [granting/enforcing] exclusive rights.**
This is the whole crux of my argument — the Constitution only grants the power to secure the exclusive rights to the creator*, and even then only for a limited time:

The Congress shall have Power […] To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries;

* — Creator = author for copyright and inventor for patent.
** — This means that a patent is ONLY good for the inventor, not his company, not his estate, not his next-of-kin, not some guy he sold it to.