Appeals Court Tells Patent Trolls' Favorite Judge He Can't Just Ignore The Supreme Court To Keep Patent Cases In Texas

from the not-how-it-works dept

A few weeks ago, we noted that Judge Rodney Gilstrap, a judge in East Texas who is infamous for handling approximately 25% of all patent cases in the entire country, appeared to be ignoring the Supreme Court in an effort to keep all those patent cases in his own docket. You see, earlier this year, in an important case, the Supreme Court said that the proper venue for a patent lawsuit to be brought should be where the defendant "resides" rather than just wherever they "do business." Previously, patent trolls had said that the lawsuits could be brought wherever a company did business -- which, with internet firms, meant anywhere -- allowing them to file in their favorite court in East Texas. The Supreme Court said "that's not what the law says."

But Gilstrap tried, somewhat creatively, to twist himself around those rules, by arguing that all sorts of other factors could be used to determine "residence" -- basically including (again) if you had any connection to that jurisdiction at all -- and thus continue to allow East Texas to be an acceptable venue. We listed out those factors in the earlier post, but don't need to do so again, because the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has already weighed in and said "nope, that's not how it works."

The ruling is pretty straightforward. Basically, it says "when we say a defendant has to reside in that venue, we mean it."

As discussed in greater detail below, our analysis of the case law and statute reveal three general requirements relevant to the inquiry: (1) there must be a physical place in the district; (2) it must be a regular and established place of business; and (3) it must be the place of the defendant. If any statutory requirement is not satisfied, venue is improper...

The court then points out that words have meaning, and making up a "test" that is untethered to the meaning of the words in the statute is simply not acceptable.

The statutory language we need to interpret is “where the defendant . . . has a regular and established place of business.” 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). The noun in this phrase is “place,” and “regular” and “established” are adjectives modifying the noun “place.” The following words, “of business,” indicate the nature and purpose of the “place,” and the preceding words, “the defendant,” indicate that it must be that of the defendant. Thus, § 1400(b) requires that “a defendant has” a “place of business” that is “regular” and “established.” All of these requirements must be present. The district court’s four-factor test is not sufficiently tethered to this statutory language and thus it fails to inform each of the necessary requirements of the statute.

And thus, Gilstrap's argument that a "virtual" presence in the district is enough... is not, in fact, enough:

As noted above, when determining venue, the first requirement is that there “must be a physical place in the district.” The district court erred as a matter of law in holding that “a fixed physical location in the district is not a prerequisite to proper venue.” ... This interpretation impermissibly expands the statute. The statute requires a “place,” i.e., “[a] building or a part of a building set apart for any purpose” or “quarters of any kind” from which business is conducted. William Dwight Whitney, The Century Dictionary, 732 (Benjamin E. Smith, ed. 1911); see also Place, Black’s Law Dictionary (1st ed. 1891) (defining place as a “locality, limited by boundaries”). The statute thus cannot be read to refer merely to a virtual space or to electronic communications from one person to another. But such “places” would seemingly be authorized under the district court’s test.

The court dings the other prongs of Gilstrap's test as well, showing that each is insufficient and then sends it back to the lower court to determine which other court the case should be transferred to, but making it clear that "East Texas" is not one of the options.

Filed Under: cafc, east texas, patent trolls, patents, rodney gilstrap, venue, venue shopping
Companies: cray, raytheon

Patent Trolls' Favorite Judge Comes Up With Test To Keep Patent Cases In East Texas, No Matter What SCOTUS Said

from the take-that-scotus dept

We've written a few times about Judge Rodney Gilstrap, an East Texas federal district court judge, whom patent trolls seem to love. For well over a decade, we've discussed how patent trolls absolutely love to file cases in East Texas, and in the past few years, Gilstrap has basically been the judge for patent cases in East Texas. Incredibly, in 2016, Gilstrap alone handled 20% of all patent cases in the country (that was true in earlier years as well). Not 20% of the patent cases filed in East Texas -- but in the whole country. And if you read that link, you see that Gilstrap seems (a) proud of this and (b) insists that people are upset about all the patent cases going to East Texas because they don't like small-town America -- and not because the court makes it that much easier for trolls to shake down everyone.

Now, as you may recall, the Supreme Court, just a few months ago, appeared to slam the door shut on patent troll venue shopping with its ruling in the TC Heartland case. In that case, the Supreme Court ruled that patent law is pretty clear, that you need to sue where the supposed infringer "resides." For years, the courts had ignored this -- despite it being plainly stated in the law -- and said that you could file a lawsuit wherever a company did any business (and with many companies, that means anywhere at all).

Many folks suggested that the SCOTUS TC Heartland ruling should put a real damper on patent trolls running to Judge Gilstrap and East Texas.

However, it appears that Gilstrap may have other ideas. Ryley Bennett, from the Washington Legal Foundation, recently wrote up a depressing article about how Gilstrap appears to have come up with a new "test" for patent venue that more or less wipes out the Supreme Court's ruling. The case was a patent infringement case where Raytheon sued Cray in East Texas. Cray argued for a change of venue, which Gilstrap denied (just a month before the SCOTUS ruling on TC Heartland), pointing to a sale Cray had made in East Texas. So after TC Heartland, Cray asked Gilstrap to reconsider with that new precedent. And here, Gilstrap single-handedly created a new "test" about what is meant by "resides" in, making it possible to keep many cases in East Texas. The key here was that Cray had a single sales person who worked from home in the Eastern District of Texas. And, to Gilstrap, that's enough to establish "residence."

Bennett explains why this is so problematic:

According to Judge Gilstrap, to demonstrate that a defendant maintains a regular and established place of business, there does not have to be a physical presence or place at all—that’s just a persuasive factor for the court to consider. Inventory, under this analysis, is persuasive in finding a regular and established place of business. Thus, under Judge Gilstrap’s interpretation, a plaintiff can secure its venue of choice by using downstream targets. Even when a corporation does not have property in the EDTX, under this test, if the corporation has remote (work-from-home) employees—who are reimbursed for business expenses such as cell phone and internet use, along with travel reimbursement—it can be subject to venue in a district where any of its remote employees resides.

Further, under Judge Gilstrap’s second factor, a defendant’s “representations” can be a mere advertisement about what the company does or where it is located, even if the company is located in a different state. Ironically, although Judge Gilstrap repeatedly stated that the business world has changed since the adoption of § 1400 and it should be adjusted accordingly, he cited a 1910 decision when stating that customer inquiries directed at an agent who happens to be in the EDTX should be considered persuasive when determining if there is a regular and established place of business there.

Judge Gilstrap’s third factor—benefits received—is not limited to sales revenues; rather, any benefit that the defendant derives from presence in the EDTX should be considered. Does this mean that a happenstance conversation in a restaurant with a person who then becomes a customer outweighs other factors and gives rise to a regular and established place of business? Under Judge Gilstrap’s third factor of his test, it does.

In explaining the final factor—targeted interactions—Judge Gilstrap cited a Sixth Circuit personal jurisdiction case as support that existing or potential customers, customer support, or targeted marketing efforts give rise to a regular and established place of business—the same type of personal jurisdiction considerations that the Supreme Court in TC Heartland said did not apply to venue determinations.

Because of all of this, Bennett notes that the new "test" feels an awful lot like the old rules that the Supreme Court just threw out. Not surprisingly, Cray immediately asked the appeals court to weigh in on the issue, while Raytheon has asked to leave Gilstrap's ruling in place. As it stands, CAFC is still reviewing the issue, and various parties are lining up filing amicus briefs urging the court one way or the other.

However, it does at least give the appearance of a highly criticized East Texas court judge effectively stacking the deck with this test in a manner that will allow him to ignore the clear spirit and substance of a Supreme Court ruling, in an effort to keep the patent troll case train to keep dumping cases at his courtroom doorstep.

Filed Under: east texas, patent trolls, patents, rodney gilstrap, scotus, supreme court, venue, venue shopping
Companies: cray, raytheon, tc heartland

DailyDirt: We Can Rebuild Him. We Have The Technology.

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

The six million dollar man was grossly underpriced. But someday the technology to to augment human limbs and senses could come down in costs. There are plenty of engineers working on robotic prosthetics. Here are just a few examples.

• The Mercedes GP Petronas F1 team is sponsoring a bionic limb for a 14-yr old kid... and you can, too. This sounds a bit more praiseworthy than the million dollar home page. [url]
• Robotic exoskeletons are on the way (in a decade or so). The Raytheon Sarcos XOS 2 is the second generation of the XOS 1 robo-suit which came out in 2008. But late adopters should probably wait for the third iteration to really work out the kinks. [url]
• A powered prosthetic leg that has software-controlled knee and ankle joints weighs just 9 pounds -- a bit less than most natural lower limbs. This artificial leg also has an "anti-stumble" feature and can go about 8 miles on a single charge. [url]
• To discover more interesting tech-related content, check out what's currently floating around the StumbleUpon universe. [url]  

By the way, StumbleUpon can recommend some good Techdirt articles, too.

Filed Under: bionic, exoskeleton, limb, prosthetics
Companies: mercedes, raytheon