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

Sorry East Texas: Supreme Court Slams The Door On Patent Jurisdiction Shopping

from the no-more-bulls dept

Another Supreme Court case on patents, and another complete smackdown of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), the court that is supposed to be the "expert" on patent cases. This morning the ruling on the TC Heartland case came out, and it could help put an end to jurisdiction shopping for patent cases. As you've probably heard, for years now patent trolls and other aggressive patent litigants have been filing their cases in East Texas, as it's become a jurisdiction that is ridiculous friendly to patent holders. The towns of Marshall and Tyler, Texas have practically built up industries around the fact that they are "patent friendly" jurisdictions. In the past few years, a second favored jurisdiction has popped up: Delaware, after a few academic studies showed that the courts there may have been even more friendly than East Texas. The TC Heartland case was about a case filed in Delaware, and raised the issue of whether or not this kind of patent forum shopping was okay. CAFC, in its usual CAFC manner, said "sure, that's great, we love jurisdiction shopping and have since our 1990 ruling in VE Holding v. Johnson Gas. This was kind of ironic, as one of the key justifications given for setting up CAFC in the first place was to put an end to jurisdiction shopping in patent cases.

Either way, CAFC once again blessed the ability of patent holders to sue in plaintiff friendly locations, and the Supreme Court -- which has spent the past decade reteaching patent law to CAFC every chance it gets -- has done so again. Once again, the decision was unanimous, with the court voting 8 - 0 that trolls can't just file over and over again in East Texas (Gorsuch, having just joined the court after the case was heard, did not take part). The opinion, written by Justice Thomas, goes through the history of jurisdiction issues related to where one can bring lawsuits, noting that historically, where a company was incorporated was the proper jurisdiction.

While most of the ruling is deep in the weeds about definitions in the law, and whether or not Congress intended to change certain definitions, here's a simplified version of what happened: some have interpreted patent law to mean that a patent holder can sue an alleged infringer anywhere that a product is sold/available. In the age of the internet, this generally means "anywhere." Thus, as long as your product was available in Texas or Delaware, trolls could sue in those locations -- even if the company was nowhere near those locations. Here, however, the Court has said that the lawsuits are supposed to be filed where the company "resides," which it says is the state where the company is incorporated. This is a huge win for companies who are targeted by patent trolls. Rather than being dragged across the country to courts like East Texas or Delaware, which have built up large practices and reputations for supporting patent trolls over actual innovators, now cases will need to be filed where the alleged infringer is actually incorporated.

Expect to see the usual whining from patent trolls and their supporters about this -- but just remember: if they have a serious case of infringement, they should be fine filing it wherever the defendants actually are. Their concern is not about how this is somehow bad for patent owners. It's really about how certain courts were biased in their favor and they can no longer take advantage of that. Of course, this might mean that the ice rink in Marshall, Texas needs to find a new sponsor.

Filed Under: cafc, delaware, east texas, jurisdiction shopping, patents, scotus, supreme court, venue
Companies: tc heartland

Supreme Court Will Hear A Case That Could Finally Shut Down East Texas As The Patent Troll Mecca

from the smack-that-cafc dept

Last year, we wrote about an important patent case concerning the common practice of patent trolls going forum shopping. We've been writing about how patent trolls have been flocking to East Texas for ten years now, and little has changed. In fact, as we noted last year, there's one judge in East Texas, Judge Rodney Gilstrap, who famously handled 20% of all patent cases filed in the country in 2014. One judge. And that's not all the patent cases that come into that court. The towns of Marshall, Texas, and Tyler, Texas, have built a giant industry out of being super friendly to patent trolls. And it's ridiculous. But there's a case that could put an end to it and the Supreme Court has thankfully agreed to hear it. The case is called In Re: TC Heartland, and -- somewhat ironically -- it is not about a case filed in East Texas, but rather in the second favorite patent troll destination: Delaware (which has become more friendly to patent trolls over the last few years -- apparently trying to compete with East Texas for the "business.")

The underlying issue in the case is whether or not a 1990 ruling by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) in the VE Holding v. Johnson Gas case basically threw open the floodgates on jurisdiction shopping for patent plaintiffs. This ruling was ridiculous on multiple levels, not the least of which was because one of the driving forces in setting up a centralized appeals court (CAFC) to hear all patent cases was to stop jurisdiction shopping that was happening in the patent space, where patent holders were rushing to favorable courts in favorable circuits. And, yes, the end result has been significantly worse forum shopping than anything that existed prior to CAFC's existence. And when CAFC got a chance to review this bad decision in hearing the TC Heartland case earlier this year... it didn't. It left the earlier rule standing.

The good news, of course, is that when the Supreme Court agrees to hear a patent case these days, it almost always means that CAFC is about to get spanked for being ridiculously bad at its main job of properly interpreting patent law. So hopefully things are lining up to see another SCOTUS smackdown of CAFC... and with that smack, an end to East Texas (or any particular jurisdiction) as a patent troll haven.

Filed Under: cafc, east texas, patents, supreme court, venue shopping
Companies: tc heartland

Court Has An Opportunity To Finally End The East Texas Patent Troll Docket

from the shut-it-down dept

It's been nearly ten years since we first wrote about the East Texas district court, based in Marshall, Texas, (and Tyler, Texas) and the fact that patent trolls have been flooding that court with cases. The trolls claimed they liked East Texas because the judges worked quickly and because they "understood" patent issues. The reality, of course, is that East Texas became notorious for a few judges who were insanely pro-patent troll, and ran their cases in a manner that helped out trolls immensely. It's become a cottage industry, leading to some weird situations, such as the time that Tivo (involved in a patent lawsuit at the time) literally bought a bull right in Marshall, Texas. Perhaps no company has "invested" more in winning over folks in Marshall than Samsung, which not only sponsored the local ice rink, but also gives scholarships to high schoolers there, donates to local schools and takes kids on semiconductor factory tours -- all out of the kindness of its corporate heart, no doubt.

The top judge for patent cases in East Texas used to be John Ward, until he "retired" to join his son in a local law practice representing patent trolls. Then the crown went to Judge Rodney Gilstrap, who is handling a ridiculous number of patent cases. In 2014, he was given 968 patent cases -- or 20% of all patent cases filed in the country. Given that, perhaps it's not surprising that he sometimes appears to completely forget about some cases he's handling. This is the same Judge Gilstrap who has never (not once) granted attorneys' fees to a defendant, despite all of the cases he's heard.

If you haven't figured it out by now, something is totally screwed up with the patent system. It's pretty clear that what we've been witnessing for over a decade is what's known as "forum shopping" in which plaintiffs seek out specific courts known to favor them, but with patent trolls and East Texas it's been taken to a new level. And, notably, a few other courts have been trying to get into the business as well, with Delaware leading the charge over the past few years. Normally, forum shopping is frowned upon, but it's been allowed in patent cases for way too long... and there's actually a chance to stop it. In 1990, a ruling by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC, the "patent appeals court") in VE Holding v. Johnson Gas basically opened the floodgates for forum shopping in patent cases.

But there's a new case that has the potential to put an end to this forum shopping. In Re: TC Heartland is another patent forum shopping case, in which an Indiana-based company is looking to get a patent case tossed out of a Delaware court over jurisdiction. EFF, together with Public Knowledge and Engine, have asked the court if it can weigh in with an amicus brief, flat out asking the court to overturn the VE Holding case, and to end forum shopping in patent cases.

Congress did not intend for patent owners to be able to sue in any district in the country, no matter how tenuous the links the purported infringer has to the district. Amici ask that this Court restore balance in patent litigation. Amici support Petitioner in asking this Court to grant the petition for mandamus and recognize that VE Holding is no longer good law.

One hopes that CAFC will listen -- or, barring that, that the Supreme Court might weigh in and fix this aspect of patent law, as it's fixed a number of other problems with patent law over the past few years.

Filed Under: cafc, east texas, forum shopping, jurisdiction, patent trolls, patents, rodney gilstrap
Companies: tc heartland