Comments on: Federal Circuit Moves Another Case Out of W.D.Tex.

By: Litig8or

Litig8or — Thu, 22 Apr 2021 13:58:49 +0000

It doesn’t matter in practice because if venue is improper the statutory cure is to transfer venue under Section 1406(a). So either way the same result is reached. That’s why parties usually file a MTD and a motion to transfer simultaneously.

By: anon

anon — Thu, 22 Apr 2021 12:37:30 +0000

LR, I can buy that.

By: Lode_Runner

Lode_Runner — Thu, 22 Apr 2021 07:34:22 +0000

I am not surprised it was transferred but I also expected them to resolve this based on improper venue under 1400(b), before reaching a 1404(a) convenience analysis. Proper venue is an express legal requirement, akin to personal jurisdiction, so it’s not entirely proper to simply assume compliance with the mandatory legal requirements to resolve the question on wishy-washy discretionary factors.

But by resolving the case on 1404(a), the case may be a signal that the Federal Circuit is now willing to entertain more mandamus petitions for the more blatant instances of W.D. Texas forum shopping.

By: Pro Say

Pro Say — Thu, 22 Apr 2021 02:52:22 +0000

“Go West, young, man; go West!” they all said.

Western District of Texas, that is!

By: anon

anon — Wed, 21 Apr 2021 15:21:58 +0000

You are missing the point – the benefit/liability is but ONE COIN.

By: Paul F Morgan

Paul F Morgan — Wed, 21 Apr 2021 14:29:00 +0000

Further WDTX “mandamus-a-rama” is unlikely, first because of the two existing venue-training-wheels, secondly because mandamus is even rarer for just forcing all parties to full trials by denying all S.J.s [even with early Markman’s] and all IPR stays. Also by getting IPR discretionary institution denials based on unrealistic early trial dates. [This inherently leads to most patent case disposals being by defendant cash payments just to avoid discovery and trial expenses, so the asserted patents will never get tested or appealed on validity, infringement or anything else.]

By: Litig8or

Litig8or — Wed, 21 Apr 2021 13:43:51 +0000

Changing venue is NOT a liability issue. It’s just that the forum chosen to determine liability is inconvenient (and often illogical$

By: anon

anon — Wed, 21 Apr 2021 13:38:13 +0000

I am not conflating anything – I am laying out the plain reasoning.

“That would not be an improvement to law”

Says you – I say the opposite.

On my side, we have the alignment of both sides of the coin – choice of obtaining benefit married with accompanying liability.

What do you have on your side? Unrestrained benefit with NO sense of liability? How is that ‘better?’

By: Litig8or

Litig8or — Wed, 21 Apr 2021 12:41:28 +0000

You’re conflating personal jurisdiction with venue. Moreover even if venue is technically proper in a forum 28 USC 1404 is about convenience-moving the dispute to a convenient forum. Under your theory Apple could get sued in Alaska just because people have iPhones there. That would not be an improvement to law.

By: anon

anon — Wed, 21 Apr 2021 12:13:40 +0000

Granted I am suggesting a change in law (or perhaps an interpretation that is simply more reasonable), but if a business is choosing to capture the benefits of doing business IN a State, why in the world would one expect that choice not to carry the liability (flip side of the same coin) OF doing business in that State? Further, patents (and patent protection and thus liability against that protection) is a Federal matter, unlimited to any single State, and thus should carry to any place at which a business has chosen to capture the benefits side of the coin. Don’t like Texas? Simple: don’t avail yourself of the benefits of doing business IN Texas. Problem solved.