Intellectual Property Law Commons^™

Solving The Riddle! Bridging The Gap In The Federal Circuit’S Definition Of “Regular And Established Place Of Business” To Prevent Patent Trolls From Forum Shopping, Michael A. Morales

Touro Law Review

No abstract provided.

The Cessation Of Innovation: An Inquiry Into Whether Congress Can And Should Strip The Supreme Court Of Its Appellate Jurisdiction To Entertain Patent Cases, Catherine Taylor

Chicago-Kent Law Review

No abstract provided.

Fixing Forum Selling, Brian L. Frye, Christopher J. Ryan Jr.

Law Faculty Scholarly Articles

"Forum selling” is jurisdictional competition intended to attract litigants. While consensual forum selling may be beneficial, non-consensual forum selling is harmful because it encourages jurisdictions to adopt an inefficient pro-plaintiff bias. In the last 20 years, the Eastern District of Texas has adopted an aggressive and remarkably successful policy of non-consensual forum selling in patent infringement actions. In 2016, 44% of all patent infringement actions were filed in the Eastern District of Texas, and 93% of them were filed by patent assertion entities or “patent trolls.”

In December 2016, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in TC Heartland v. Kraft, …

Plausible Pleading In Patent Suits: Predicting The Effects Of The Abrogation Of Form 18, Kyle R. Williams

Michigan Telecommunications & Technology Law Review

On December 1, 2015, amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure took effect. The changes included, among other things, the abrogation of the Appendix of Forms, which contained templates for summons, complaints, answers, and other litigation documents. Prior to its abrogation, Form 18—a template for a “Complaint for Patent Infringement”—was widely utilized by patent plaintiffs in crafting infringement complaints. Form 18 was created during the Conley pleading regime, when conclusory allegations were generally sufficient to survive a motion to dismiss. Accordingly, the sample allegations in Form 18 were conclusory and bare-bones in nature. Under Conley, plaintiffs who followed this …

The 2015 Changes To The Federal Rules Matter For Your Patent Case And Tech Business: Getting In The Courthouse Door Just Got Tougher, Matthew D'Amore

Cornell Law Faculty Publications

No abstract provided.

2003 Patent Law Decisions Of The Federal Circuit, Paul Devinsky, Mark G. Davis

American University Law Review

No abstract provided.

Swallowing The Apple Whole: Improper Patent Use By Local Rule, Ellisen S. Turner

Michigan Law Review

During patent infringement litigation, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure ("FRCP") and the federal district court's local rules govern the parties' pretrial discovery and motion practice. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California has adopted the most comprehensive local rules to date covering pretrial procedures in the patent litigation context. The Northern District of California Patent Local Rules ("Local Rules") may come to have a significant impact throughout the federal courts, as it appears that other jurisdictions and commentators are looking to the Local Rules for guidance. For instance, the American Bar Association Section of Intellectual Property …

The 1988 Revision Of 28 U.S.C. 1391(C): Corporate Venue Is Now Equivalent To In Personam Jurisdiction Effects On Civil Actions For Patent Infringement, Thomas W. Adams

Cleveland State Law Review

Venue in federal cases is controlled by the general venue statute unless there exists an applicable special venue statute that attaches to the particular cause of action under consideration. This note is concerned with the section of the general venue statute applicable to corporate defendants and its interaction with the special venue statute for civil actions in patent infringement cases ("patent venue statute"). As a first step in the discussion of venue, it is necessary to go back in history over 200 years. This note reviews the history of venue, both generally and in cases of patent infringement, the historical …

The 1988 Revision Of 28 U.S.C. 1391(C): Corporate Venue Is Now Equivalent To In Personam Jurisdiction Effects On Civil Actions For Patent Infringement, Thomas W. Adams

Cleveland State Law Review

Venue in federal cases is controlled by the general venue statute unless there exists an applicable special venue statute that attaches to the particular cause of action under consideration. This note is concerned with the section of the general venue statute applicable to corporate defendants and its interaction with the special venue statute for civil actions in patent infringement cases ("patent venue statute"). As a first step in the discussion of venue, it is necessary to go back in history over 200 years. This note reviews the history of venue, both generally and in cases of patent infringement, the historical …

Federal Civil Procedure-Venue-Effect Of 1948 Judicial Code Definition Of Corporate Residence On Venue Under The Jones Act, Mary Mandana Long

Michigan Law Review

Plaintiff seaman, having been injured while serving on a vessel owned and operated by the defendant corporations, brought a civil action in federal district court alleging claims for negligence under the Jones Act, for unseaworthiness, and for maintenance and cure. The venue provision of the Jones Act requires that actions under it be brought in the district in which the defendant employer resides or in which his principal office is located. Plaintiff filed his complaint in the Western District of Pennsylvania although defendants were incorporated and maintained their principal offices in Louisiana. Defendants' motions to dismiss on the ground of …

Federal Procedure - Venue - Application Of Special Venue Provision To Change Of Venue In Patent Infringement Action, Dean L. Berry S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

Petitioner brought a patent infringement action in the northern district of Texas, wherein the alleged infringement occurred and the named defendants resided and had a regular place of business. On motion by the named defendants under 28 U.S.C. §1404(a), authorizing the transfer of certain actions to a district in which the action "might have been brought," the court ordered transfer to the northern district of Illinois where litigation on the same patent was already in progress between the plaintiff and other alleged infringers. Petitioner's motion for mandamus to require the Texas district court to set aside this transfer order was …

H. J. Heinz Co. V. Superior Court Of Alameda County, Jesse W. Carter

Jesse Carter Opinions

Defendant's license for a patent was revoked, an order to destroy generators was upheld to prevent future infringement, a compensatory damage award was not recognized in state, and federal court had no jurisdiction to enjoin state court proceedings.