Posts Tagged: "EDVA"

In Nantkwest v. Matal, the Federal Circuit reversed the Eastern District of Virginia’s denial of the USPTO’s request for attorneys’ fees in connection with Nantkwest’s district court appeal of the PTAB rejection of its patent application. At issue was the correct interpretation of Section 145 of the Patent Act, namely the language “[a]ll of the expenses of the proceeding.” The Court held that Section 145 of the Patent Act requires the appellant to pay the USPTO’s attorneys’ fees, regardless of the outcome of the case.

In two recent decisions following T. C. Heartland, district courts have applied two different methodologies in resolving motions to change venue… In the first decision a trial judge in the Eastern District of Virginia denied the venue motion, filed three days after T.C. Heartland but also on the eve of trial.  Cobalt Boats, LLC v. Sea Ray Boats, Inc. (June 7, 2017)… In the second decision, a district court in the Southern District of Ohio applied the standards in § 1400(b) and transferred the action because neither of two defendants resided in the district and neither had a permanent and continuous presence in Ohio.

If the Eastern District of Virginia can dispatch patent cases in less time than the PTAB, why should we suffer the indignity of the lack of due process and constitutional infirmity of an Article II tribunal striping vested property rights without much, if any, real oversight by an independent judiciary?

It was only going to be a matter of time before Director Lee declaring a federal holiday without any statutory authority came back to haunt the USPTO. Here the defendants were served with the complaint on December 24, 2014, which means any IPR had to be filed on or before Thursday, December 24, 2015. The defendants filed their IPR petitions on Monday, December 28, 2015. The patent owner argues in a recently filed federal complaint that the IPR petitions would be considered untimely but for Director Lee declaring December 22-24, 2015, federal holidays due to the catastrophic failure of the USPTO’s electronic filing systems.

Despite being grossly unfair to small inventors, the courts are routinely transferring cases to a venue containing the headquarters of the infringing multinational corporation, as happened in this case. Often cases are moved thousands of miles requiring outside counsel, travel, additional motions and legal work and other costs. Often the new venue is not experienced in patent cases and may take years longer to conclude the litigation. Part of the strategy for defendants is to fight a costly war of attrition against independent inventors and small businesses. Eventually they will be forced to give up. That is why patent reform that impacts venue matters so much, it is about raising costs, tipping the scales of justice and beating innovators into submission using procedural rules.