In recent years, there has been a large increase in the number of patent litigation cases held in the Eastern District of Texas. While this seemingly random district would not be where people would think to file for lawsuit, it is popular for a number of reasons.
To start, the district has a number of local rules that expedite the trial process. For patent cases, having an expedient trial can make all the different because as large corporations know best, time is money. With shorter trials, it is much easier for the plaintiffs to win because the defendant must put together a solid defense, which is pricey. This has caused Eastern Texas to be a place that the defendant wants to avoid altogether, while the plaintiff wants to file in this district.
The Eastern District is also infamous for favoring plaintiffs during trials as well as local technology. This has caused a number of companies, including Exxon, to form "Texas LLC's" in order to win favor with local courts.
Perhaps the most telling reason that the Eastern District of Texas has become so popular is because of the demographic. This region of Texas has a less education population than many other districts and is on average, an older population as well. This combination allows for a less technical audience to jury these cases, allowing for a better chance that the plaintiff will win.
I hope that districts across the map can become more universal in ruling. With districts like Eastern Texas, litigation becomes more of a strategy game than about the intellectual property.
Source: http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/01/east-texas-courts-are-back-on-top-for-patent-lawsuits/
I'm a little confused as to why local courts have the power to create their own set of rules when adjudicating conflicts. This would make sense if this was a local trial based on a violation of a local city ordinance or a state law. However, patents are enforced by the USPTO--a national organization. Thus, it would seem to make most sense to have a uniform set of national laws that apply to the litigation of these intellectual property cases. It's unfair to have local courts apply their own set of rules on how these cases can be filed, tried, and adjudicated. Even if these cases aren't argued in front of a national court system with educated juries, they should at the very least be tried in courts located in regions where the plaintiff has a vested interest (ex. Apple filing lawsuits in California instead of Eastern Texas).
ReplyDeleteI also felt it was disturbing to certain extent. One of the reason why they were suing in this specific court was because the people living there overall had lower education background than other cities. Also, the fact that they wanted to be tried in this specific location because the general population didn't really know about technology due to high age was also disturbing. It could be perceived as inevitable as the patent war is heating up, but as a consumer, I don't agree with the system. Hopefully, the court system finds something to fix this issue.
ReplyDeleteIt definitely is puzzling to see a court with a clear bias still running the way they do without any interjection by any organization. Patent litigations focused on demographic challenges rather than actual patent issues pulls away from fighting for true patent-related outcomes.
ReplyDelete