Patent Law

Busybody

By Gary Odom and Jordan Kuhn

Mother hen AIPLA is clucking over the Eastern District of Texas. 28 U.S.C. §1391, the venue statute, grants broad latitude: any venue where a "defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced." Not good enough for AIPLA.

The routine filing of patent infringement complaints in the Eastern District of Texas that have essentially no connection to that district has been encouraged by the seeming reluctance of courts in that district to transfer cases under § 1404(a). Courts are supposed to transfer cases "[f]or the convenience of parties and witnesses" and "in the interest of justice." 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The Eastern District of Texas, however, too often holds on to cases that should be transferred under that standard.

I must not be keeping up. Who died and made AIPLA patent litigation nanny?

AIPLA butting in arises from an appeals court hearing in a product liability case, In re Volkswagen. Professor Dennis Crouch:

VW argues that the District Court (Judge Ward) abused its discretion in denying the defendant's §1404 venue transfer motion - arguing that it would be "unduly burdensome" for the multinational to litigate in the Eastern District of Texas rather than the Northern District of Texas.

AIPLA filed a whining amicus brief about the Eastern District of Texas hanging on to cases when it should let them go.

The routine filing of patent infringement complaints in the Eastern District of Texas that have essentially no connection to that district has been encouraged by the seeming reluctance of courts in that district to transfer cases under § 1404(a).

AIPLA damns with faint praise how the district conveniences parties to expedite litigation.

In some instances, the courts in the Eastern District have discounted the convenience of witnesses because the parties could use video deposition testimony in lieu of live witness testimony.

AIPLA wants jurisdictional shoving out of the nest based upon a Fox News-like evaluation of "fair and balanced" convenience.

A "center of evidentiary gravity" analysis is appropriate to determine the proximity of the witnesses and evidence to the proposed forum. Such an analysis should consider the witnesses and evidence of all parties and non-parties in a balanced fashion... The district courts should undertake this "center of evidentiary gravity" analysis in weighing the private interest factors to determine the most appropriate forum to hear a case.

The AIPLA brief is a monstrosity of pomposity in presumption for case eruption, from EDT, you see.

Hat tip to Professor Crouch, who has the backdrop.

Full post as published by The Patent Prospector on March 27, 2008 (boomark / email).