Patent Reform – Mooted Again

An earlier blog post (read it here if you’ve already forgotten) touched on an aspect of the proposed patent reform – apportionment of damages – which seemingly has been mooted by the courts. A second aspect – proper venue for patent infringement cases – seems to be going the same way.

The eastern district of Texas has long been the venue of choice for plaintiffs in patent infringement cases, so much so as to spur the cry for choice of venue provisions in the proposed Patent Reform. The local juries – wise and good folks all – have consistently recognized the merits of plaintiffs’ cases and routinely awarded just (and generous) damages. Moreover, the eastern district was like Las Vegas (albeit without half naked women and free drinks) – whatever case was brought in the eastern district stayed in the eastern district. And none of those fancy, city-slicker summary judgments or judgments as a matter of law (JMOL) for defendants – a case that didn’t settle, went to the JURY for TRIAL. Well, those days may be over.

The C.A.F.C. recently ruled that a refusal by an eastern district judge to transfer a patent infringement case to a “more convenient forum” was a clear abuse of the judge’s discretion. TS Tech Co. v. Lear Corp. So, now it appears that the eastern district may be forced to follow the same venue rules as the rest of the country – rules much more palatable to defendants (slimeballs). As if that wasn’t enough, the eastern district has begun granting judgments as a matter of law to (gasp) defendants. Of late, even the juries in the eastern district have found for defendants (oh, the shame of it). Finally, as if to add insult to injury, the time from filing suit to trial, once only slightly more than a year, has now stretched to about 2½ years. The eastern district is no longer a “rocket docket.”

THE LESSON TO BE LEARNED: Nothing lasts forever and all good things must come to an end.