That article is incorrect or unclear. They are registered in Delaware, but are incorporated in California. From Apple's investor FAQ page:
http://investor.apple.com/faq.cfm
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Supreme Court Ruling Should Spell the End of Apple's Patent Troll Battles in East Texas [Updated]
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
That article is incorrect or unclear. They are registered in Delaware, but are incorporated in California. From Apple's investor FAQ page:
http://investor.apple.com/faq.cfm
Cmaier is correct in his or her analysis. This ruling does not seem to affect Apple very much. The patent statute provides that a plaintiff can file the lawsuit in any jurisidiction "in which defendant resides, or where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business"
Thomas' opinion (which was unanimously adopted with the exception of Gorsuch who did not participate), simply clarified the meaning of the word "residence". The rest of the venue clause of the statute still stands. So in Apple's case, it can be sued in Delaware (Apple's state of incorporation and therefore its "residence") or in any jurisdiction in which Apple both (a) allegedly committed acts of infringement and (b) has regular and established business dealings. That includes Marshall, Texas.
Thomas' opinion (which was unanimously adopted with the exception of Gorsuch who did not participate), simply clarified the meaning of the word "residence". The rest of the venue clause of the statute still stands. So in Apple's case, it can be sued in Delaware (Apple's state of incorporation and therefore its "residence") or in any jurisdiction in which Apple both (a) allegedly committed acts of infringement and (b) has regular and established business dealings. That includes Marshall, Texas.
Makes no sense to rule this as it let's one legally steal and we all know who is the best at stealing.
No, the "AND" doesn't mean that. You have to have a regular place of business in the venue. And you have to infringe in the venue. But you don't have to infringe in the actual place of business, just in the venue.
The author of that article may have made an incorrect assumption as many corporations are incorporated in Delaware. Or perhaps they meant something else.
Apple was incorporated in California.
You don't have to infringe at the store (though a SALE of an infringing product at the store WOULD be an act of infringement at the store).
It says in the decision that an alternate site requires that an "act of infringement" has taken place there.
[doublepost=1495472676][/doublepost]
The exact wording is ...or where the defendant has committed acts of infringement AND has a regular and established place of business. " "And" is meaningful.
If a sale of an infringing product is an act of infringement, then Best Buy and Amazon would be liable. as well.
Doesn't matter that there is no store there. Apple allows people in east Texas to buy from Apple's website, and Apple ships to them. So Apple does business in east Texas.
[doublepost=1495472765][/doublepost]
But I agree that Tyler is awful.
Yes, the AND means "in the same VENUE." Not "in the place of business." It says a VENUE where the defendant has committed acts of infringement AND (a venue where the defendant) has a regular and established place of business."
If all you have in the venue is a store, then what is the act of infringement in the venue? You haven't designed or manufactured the product there, just sold it.
Selling is an act of infringement.
If Tim Cook drives through town and sells an infringing product from his car, he's infringed in the venue. If Apple has no offices or business presence in the venue, Apple cannot be sued there, even though Apple has infringed there.
If Apple has a store there, but the store doesn't sell the infringing product, they CAN be sued there, because Tim Cook infringed there by selling from his car AND they have a regular business presence there.
I believe that article is mistaken about the incorporation issue.
If you look at this SEC filing from Apple it says California.
That's fine. I had done a quick google search and found evidence to the contrary (which i provided a link to) but didn't check official filings. It's irrelevant to my central point: Apple can be sued LOTS of places other than northern california.
Ok. Still, Apple can be sued many places other than northern california, which is really the point. Including, possibly, eastern texas (no idea if Apple has any offices or stores that fall within that very large district, that goes all the way to north of dallas and to the louisiana border)
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't think you're thinking this all the way through. Suppose Apple ONLY has the store in the venue (no factory or design center, etc.). Then, how can they possibly commit an act of infringement in the venue, other than sales and service?
If sales were actually an infringing act, it's easy to see how a well-funded troll could use that to bring down the entire US economy.
Sales IS an infringing act.
35 USC 271 (a)
Except as otherwise provided in this title, whoever without authority makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention, within the United States or imports into the United States any patented invention during the term of the patent therefor, infringes the patent.
I'm not sure whether you meant to quote me as I didn't suggest that acts of infringement do occur at Apple Stores.
That said, if Apple sells products which infringe on others' patents (i.e. Apple isn't licensed to use those patents), then acts of infringement likely do occur at Apple Stores (as well as, perhaps, at other locations). U.S. patent laws refer to a number of actions which constitute infringement - e.g., using, selling, or offering for sell patented inventions without authority to do so.
Sucks for Tyler. No company is going to have a "established place of business" located in that courts jurisdiction. Just like the 9th circuit that place needs some major changes as well.