Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
<b><i>BREAKING NEWS</b></i><br>Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Blockbuster Patent Venue Case
In a win for the tech industry, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Dec. 14 to hear a case that could move patent cases out of the Eastern District of Texas.
The justices said they will hear an appeal filed by drink flavoring company TC Heartland LLC, which is facing patent infringement claims brought by Kraft Food Brands Group LLC. A ruling for TC Heartland could limit patent infringement suits to venues where defendants have a “regular and established place of business” like California, Delaware and New York.
Kraft Foods sued TC Heartland in federal court in Delaware in 2014. Heartland sought to have the litigation moved to Indiana, where it's based, arguing it does virtually no regular business in Delaware.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for Federal Circuit rejected TC Heartland's transfer bid in an April 29 ruling. The court held that arguments over venue had been “firmly resolved” by VE Holding v. Johnson Gas Appliance, a 1990 decision that held that patent cases can be heard anywhere a defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction. [For more on TC Heartland and its aftermath, see "Patent Venue Rule Remains the Same -- For Now," in our June 2016 issue.]
In its petition to the Supreme Court, TC Heartland argues that VE Holding was wrongly decided and that, in any event, it was overruled by later congressional amendments. More than 20 tech companies, including Oracle Corp. and Newegg Inc., filed an amicus brief in support of TC Heartland. They argue that “the Federal Circuit's misreading of the patent venue statute has led to pervasive forum shopping with the unintended and undesirable concentration of most patent litigation in a handful of judicial districts.”
While TC Heartland is a Delaware case, it could have major repercussions for the Eastern District of Texas, a popular venue for patent-holders. As The Intellectual Property Strategist's ALM sibling Corporate Counsel has reported, nearly one-third of all patent cases filed in 2015 were assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap of the Eastern District of Texas. Many of the cases heard in East Texas are filed by nonpracticing entities (pejoratively referred to as “patent trolls”).
***** Jan Wolfe writes for Corporate Counsel, an ALM sibling of The Intellectual Property Strategist.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
'Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P.': A Tutorial On Contract Liability for Real Estate Purchasers
In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.