Posts Tagged: "TC Heartland"

The TC Heartland decision follows the trend of eroding patent holder rights due to the potential for infringers to more easily move the lawsuit to a more favorable forum and in some cases have the issues of infringement and discovery for same stayed for a year or more.  As patents and mechanisms to enforce patents become weaker, the high-tech economy of Northern California will begin to diminish as foreign companies encounter fewer obstacles in their way to compete against companies with weaker IP rights… Because so much hinges on a stay motion in modern patent litigation cases, this predominant statistic influences where plaintiffs should consider filing their patent complaint.

Although patent litigation levels through the first nine months of 2017 have largely remained consistent with patterns from recent years, it does appear that the number of patent suits filed in U.S. district courts has been on a slow decline in recent years. There were a total of 995 patent lawsuits filed in district court during 2017’s third quarter, an 8.4 percent decline when compared to totals from 2016’s third quarter. Year-over-year declines in patent suit filing were also seen in the first and second quarters of 2016 as well. As Lex Machina data scientist Brian Howard notes, 2017 continued a trend in which patent suit filings tend to drop in the first quarter of the year, rise during the second quarter and then fall again during the third quarter. “Historically, that’s a pattern that we’ve seen pretty consistently in the past few years,” Howard said.

On May 22, 2017, in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands, LLC, 137 S.Ct. 1514 (2017), the Supreme Court held that patent venue is controlled exclusively by 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), which restricts venue in patent cases to (1) where the Defendant resides, or (2) where the Defendant commits an act of infringement and has a regular and established place of business. The decision was immediately hailed by commentators as a significant break with past precedent… Despite the common perception of practitioners that the TC Heartland decision changed the law of venue in patent cases, the majority of district courts to address this issue have come to the opposite conclusion, finding that the decision merely reaffirmed existing law and could not excuse the failure to raise the defense earlier. The reasoning of these decisions is questionable, as is the refusal of these courts to recognize how dramatically TC Heartland changed the landscape for patent litigation.

In re Cray, Inc., the Federal Circuit applied the recent Supreme Court’s TC Heartland decision to grant a writ of mandamus, directing the Eastern District of Texas to transfer Raytheon’s patent case to a proper venue. The district court refused the transfer based on notions of targeting the district for a benefit, according to a four-part test it adapted from In re Cordis Corp. The Federal Circuit disagreed, holding that the listed criteria were not sufficiently tethered to the relevant statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b)… In determining venue in a patent infringement case, the location of defendant’s employees who work from home is not a regular and established place of defendant’s business when the defendant corporation has no material connection to that place, as by rent, inventory, conditioning employment based on the location, or other relevant facts.

To fix the current incarnation of the U.S. patent system and reinvigorate the American economy, Judge Michel called upon the House IP subcommittee to adopt seven specific action items. Five of the action items relate to improvements to patent law for the strengthening of patent rights while optimizing PTAB procedures already in place, while two other action items focus on the administration of the USPTO.

Unfortunately, the answer may be not as much as many expected. Right after the decision there were 350 motions to transfer or dismiss in the EDTX. But the limitations imposed by TC Heartland have been called into question by a ruling from EDTX Judge Rodney Gilstrap in Raytheon Co. v. Cray Inc. In his decision, Gilstrap denied a motion by Cray seeking to transfer the case to another district in light of TC Heartland. Gilstrap found that the existence of a single employee in the district constituted “regular and established place of business,” and he established a four-factor test to decide whether newer cases belong in the district… As hopeful as some folks were about TC Heartland, it certainly hasn’t stopped NPEs. The IP community must acknowledge this and adjust accordingly – it’s still the wild west out there, for now.

Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, a party waives its right to assert a defense of improper venue when it fails to raise the defense in a pleading or with other Rule 12 motions.  Importantly, however, that waiver only takes effect if the defense was “available” to the party at the time of filing either the pleading or motion.  Many circuits, including the Federal Circuit, interpret that requirement by recognizing an intervening law exception to the waiver of a defense, whereby an intervening change in law makes available a defense that had not previously been available.  Does the Supreme Court’s decision in TC Heartland constitute a change in the law?  Was the defense of improper venue unavailable until May 22, 2017?

In their recent TC Heartland decision, SCOTUS created unequal protection against patent infringers based on geographical incorporation decisions. They added uncertainty in time, cost, and outcome in patent litigation. Standardized local rules and demand letter reform at the federal level would help mitigate this unfortunate situation… Unless Congress acts to change venue laws, patent owners are now severely restricted in the choice of venue. And, if proposed legislation like S.2733 and the corresponding portion of H.R.9 are any indication, action by Congress may not change much regarding venue. So for now, patent owners must live with the restrictions resulting from TC Heartland.

Some analysts have concluded that the Supreme Court’s recent decision in TC Heartland will make it more difficult for patent owners to enforce their patents. Generally, they assert that patent infringement litigation will become more costly for patent owners because they may have to assert their rights in multiple jurisdictions throughout the country. They also contend that concurrent litigation in multiple courts will lead to inconsistent outcomes. One response to these concerns is multidistrict litigation under 28 U.S.C. § 1407. Congress authorized the formation of a Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer “civil actions involving one or more common questions of fact” to a single “district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.” The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has authority to transfer patent cases as it does any other “civil actions.” Indeed, Congress predicted that patent cases would be particularly appropriate for multidistrict litigation.

The TC Heartland decision strikes me as more anti-business than it is anti-patent. In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision all patent owners will now be forced to seek remedy for patent infringement where the defendant is incorporated or where the infringing defendant has a significant place of business. In other words, all patent owners will in theory have to fight patent infringement disputes against domestic corporations on the home turf of the infringer… It also seems unlikely that TC Heartland will do anything about any lingering patent troll problem. As long as America’s technology companies continue to pay extortion there will be bad actors. Trolls will be trolls whether it is in the Eastern District of Texas or somewhere else, and it is recklessly naïve for anyone to think otherwise.

We believe that the fallout from the Court’s ruling last week will be less dire for patent owners than most commentators predict. The conventional wisdom is that TC Heartland will cause a mass exodus of patent filings from the Eastern District of Texas and other supposedly plaintiff-friendly venues to Delaware, the Northern District of California and, to a lesser extent, the other states. The assumption underlying this view is that all those plaintiffs will be forced to file in the state where the defendant is incorporated. Yet even post-TC Heartland, patent owners have options and can continue to be strategic about how and where they proceed.

On Tuesday, May 30th, online legal news outlet Law360 reported that a trio of major automakers filed a motion asking a federal judge in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (E.D. Tex.) to toss a patent infringement suit filed last May by Longview, TX-based patent licensing firm Stragent LLC. Reportedly, the automaker defendants argue that the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent decision in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods Group forecloses the case from being decided in E.D. Tex.

“What we do know is that motion practice will heat up and courts must determine how they want to handle the influx of motions to dismiss and related challenges with no clear instruction from TC Heartland,” Storm said. “Many defendants will likely move to dismiss or transfer venue, and for the latter, may take the step to proactively file in their chosen jurisdiction and then request transfer to such jurisdiction.”

What follows is reaction from a distinguished panel of industry insiders who have been following this case. Each have offered their own instant analysis, several pointing out that important questions remain about what this Supreme Court decision will mean for the many thousands of patent cases already filed, many that are now in inappropriate venues. It is probably fair to say that the ruling did not surprise most of our panel, although several point to the Supreme Court’s decision as more in a decade-plus line of cases that have continually eroded the rights of patent owners.

The Supreme Court reversed the Federal Circuit and ruled that 28 U.S.C. 1400(b) remains the only applicable patent venue statute, that 28 U.S.C. 1391(c) did not modify or amend 1400(b) or the Court’s 1957 ruling in Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Products Corp., and that the term “residence” in 28 U.S.C. 1400(b) means only the state in which a company is incorporated. The importance of this ruling should be immediately felt on patent litigation in the United States. No longer will a patent owner be able to sue an infringing defendant in a district court where the defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction. Instead, patent infringement lawsuits will only be able to be filed in districts within states where the infringing defendant is incorporated, or in districts where there has been an act of infringement and the defendant has a regular and established place of business.