5th Circuit May Stop Patent Troll "Forum Shopping" 76
I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Why is a 5th Circuit product liability case getting interest from lawyers all over the country? Because it might put an end to forum shopping by 'non practicing entities' (patent trolls) who prefer to file in the Eastern District of Texas, no matter how little relevance that forum has to their case. Thanks to the rules involving 28 U.S.C. 1404(a) motions and patent cases, people who get sued in Marshall, Texas usually can't get the case transferred elsewhere, even though that forum is seen as unreasonably favorable for patent plaintiffs. But, if the panel of judges in In Re: Volkswagen rules the way some anticipate, that could all change, and there are no less than six amici curiae who have filed briefs arguing both sides of it."
Perhaps, just maybe (Score:4, Insightful)
Both sides? (Score:1, Insightful)
Isn't it customary for an amici curiae brief to argue just one side? Here we have a case where 6 individuals felt the need to brief the court, yet couldn't decide which side they were on.
Or is the summary just incoherent, and they really meant to say "either side".
Lawyers, statistics and lies... (Score:5, Insightful)
Should Be Ashamed (Score:2, Insightful)
Not a Solution (Score:2, Insightful)
Not quite the root of the problem, is it?
Picking a fight for the wrong reason (Score:3, Insightful)
While I agree with the general precedent that this case is trying to set, I find the case that is attempting to set the precedent is a bit disheartening. Paraphrased FTA, A woman in 2006 wrecked a Golf. The front seat collapsed and crushed her child's skull, killing the child. Her lawyer filed the suit in the 5th district near Marshall, and Volkswagen attempted to have it moved to the district closer to Dallas, since that's where both the plaintiff and defendant reside, as well as the majority of witnesses. In other words, this particular case has nothing to do with patent trolls.
The idea where the plaintiff has the option to choose their venue within the state kind of baffles me in particular. I mean, the whole idea for a lawsuit is that a plaintiff has to prove that a defendant did something wrong. Why is it that the legal system allows a plaintiff to create an advantage such as court choice? Ideally, all judges should view court cases equally, so in my eyes the venue choice should be based on convenience, not preference. Am I missing something?
Re:From the "Read between the lines" department (Score:4, Insightful)
The legalmetric figure refers to cases that go to trial while the McKool Smith attorney's figure refers to cases that are filed. The two figures do not necessarily contradict, and if taken together imply that the Eastern District of Texas is phenomenally good at eliminating meritless cases prior to trial.
I can further assure you that any partner at McKool Smith is not "clinging to his lifeblood" and that that firm will continue to be one of the most successful firms in representing both plaintiffs and defendants in patent cases filed in venues across the country.
McKool Smith are some of the most skilled attorneys practicing in the field. They are highly respected and represent both plaintiffs and defendants. If patent litigation in another venue becomes popular, it will not affect McKool Smith's business. They'll continue to get as much business as they can bill. I doubt anyone there would misrepresent a material fact to a trade journal read by his colleagues, especially over something as unimportant as this.
What you, and many of the kneejerk anti-patent posters on slashdot fail to understand is why the Eastern District of Texas is a good venue for civil suits. Unlike (say) the Southern Distict of New York, the Eastern District of Texas has very few criminal cases pending at any given time. These cases get priority over civil cases and get to cut in line. The lack of criminal cases gives both plaintiffs and defendants a very clear timetable for trial. This led to the popularity of the Eastern District which led to an experienced court, where reversals on appeal are now less likely (and that's a huge component in patent litigation). It allows patent cases to be quickly resolved on their merits (where quickly is 2-5 years) rather than allowing either party to victimize the other by gaming some broken aspect of the court system.
Rapid resolution is good for both parties, as it reduces uncertainty and legal fees. What kind of investment would a rational business make in additional employees or new technology when some legal sword of Damocles hangs over them for ten years, threatening to take three times their profits over that period at any moment? What incentive would anyone have to respect the patent system when they could draw any patent litigation into a venue already so clogged that the plaintiff had no realistic opportunity to have his day in court. If you think people shouldn't lose their jobs because of patent cases, or that patents stifle innovation, then you should be in favor of a venue of experienced jurists that rapidly resolves patent disputes and reduces patent-related uncertainty from business decisions.
Re:the system is very broken (Score:3, Insightful)
Hmm, supposition on your part? (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:the system is very broken (Score:3, Insightful)
You have a point. The biggest problem with a seven year old girl wearing a helmet while driving a car is not the helmet.
Re:Should Be Ashamed (Score:1, Insightful)
So, if marriage is a religious thing, and should be sacred, why should the government have any say in who can marry who? Doesn't separation between church and state apply here? We don't want the government saying who can love who, do we now?
And I don't think anybody, for one second, will tell me that (strictly) state marriages are all that sacred, what with everybody and their mother getting married in Las Vegas (just look at Britney Spears)! So why does the government have a say about how many people of any persuasion can raise kids (if they are deemed fit parents that are able to care), or how many people can combine their bank accounts, or how many people can change their last name/s, or who can take care of you when your incapacitated? Those are personal decisions, and the government really has no right interfering in those.
I am all for secular government as well (even though, I, too, am a religious "nutball"). And I will get the hell out of any faith when that faith gets out of my relationships with other people (even though I'm heterosexual, and a monogamist). You can't, and really shouldn't try, to legislate morality.
Another way to think of it is this:
God gives us free will. If we should follow his example, shouldn't we do the same to our fellow people?
Posting anon for various reasons (at work, responding to troll/offtopic, unpopular viewpoint).
Picture I can't find. (Score:2, Insightful)
Helmets are only made to protect against a 6 foot fall. It's a trivial form of protection that just happens to be useful in a lot of trivial bike wrecks that would otherwise be fatal. An automobile provides the same measure of protection on it's own and wearing a helmet might just break your neck in a major car wreck. It is also much easier to turn your head around with a helmet in a car.
In this particular case the seat would have killed the girl some other way unless she was wrapped in a better crash couch. That's what the case is about. Car seats are supposed to be able to take six G. It's not supposed to flop back and smooosh the person in the back seat. At some level of violence there's nothing you can do. There was an awful picture of a taxi under a boulder in the recent China quake but I can't find it. It was like a pancake.
Re:Shouldn't you explain that more? (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, there's a damned good reason to sue there: speed.
I was involved in a case there as a witness. It was 16 months from filing suit to verdict. If it had been in, say, Washington (where defendant corporation resided, as well as the two inventors on the patent in suit) or California (where the corporation behind plaintiff resided), we'd probably still be working through claims construction with a judge with little patent experience--if we could even get on the calendar.
As a programmer who would have preferred to have nothing to do with the whole matter, I'm glad it took place where it would be a speedy process. Sure, I'd have rather had the trial in Seattle, which is a mere ferry ride away from my home, rather than in Texas, which was a long Amtrak ride away, but I'd much rather have it take 16 months rather than several years!
Re:the system is very broken (Score:3, Insightful)