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
Nothing wrong with the 9th circuit. Not even the most-reversed circuit. The 6th circuit, on the other hand...
They do have stores north of Dallas that are in the Eastern District.
But yes, as far as I can tell you are correct in that interpretation. What's still confusing me is that literally every news story I've read on it (WSJ, Bloomberg, National Law Journal, etc.), they say the decision means patent trials must be held in the state of incorporation. So either they're all wrong or there's something we're missing.
You invented the patent itself?
Cool story bro.
Thanks. I did. Paid for by IBM. Though it's now "expired" and available to the public. I'd post the number but I'd basically be revealing my full name and address to the public. Just happy that I'm legally an "inventor" in the eyes of the US Government
They do have stores north of Dallas that are in the Eastern District.
But yes, as far as I can tell you are correct in that interpretation. What's still confusing me is that literally every news story I've read on it (WSJ, Bloomberg, National Law Journal, etc.), they say the decision means patent trials must be held in the state of incorporation. So either they're all wrong or there's something we're missing.
They are wrong. They are taking a line from the order, but it's out of context. The order could have been clearer.
Not to suggest that Apple automatically deserves rights to anything with an 'i' in front of it, but any such filing is pretty clearly derivative of Apple's marketing influence. #iLawsuit
You invented the patent itself?
Cool story bro.
To clarify, patents have both "inventors" and "assignees". In my case I am listed as the "inventor" and IBM is the "assignee" (they own it). Hence, I am the "inventor" of the patent
Nothing wrong with the 9th circuit. Not even the most-reversed circuit. The 6th circuit, on the other hand...
9th circuit is full of leftist activists and is an embarrassment as shown by their high reversal rate.
Their reversal rate is lower than other circuits, including the 6th and 11th.
But whatever gets you through life, pal.
They do have stores north of Dallas that are in the Eastern District.
But yes, as far as I can tell you are correct in that interpretation. What's still confusing me is that literally every news story I've read on it (WSJ, Bloomberg, National Law Journal, etc.), they say the decision means patent trials must be held in the state of incorporation. So either they're all wrong or there's something we're missing.
I follow the Supreme Court pretty closely - often listening to oral arguments and reading merits and cert briefs and reading most of its noteworthy decisions when they are released or shortly thereafter. I would say that conventional news sources (i.e. those that don't focus on the Supreme Court on a regular basis) often misstate or otherwise oversimplify (in consequential ways) what is said in (or meant by) Supreme Court decisions.
I talk to people all the time who are meaningfully misinformed about what various noteworthy Supreme Court decisions say. Often they are adamant in their misunderstandings and almost invariably it turns out that they haven't read the decisions themselves, they're relying on what they heard (e.g. from conventional news sources) about the decisions.
EDIT: My point is, it isn't surprising to me that most news sources would - especially soon after a decision is released - meaningfully misstate what that decision says or means.
That's why I checked the National Law Journal. Tony Mauro has been covering the Supreme Court for almost 40 years and it looks like he too got it wrong.
I've added an update to the article and moved it to the blog.
Eh? A company can only be incorporated in one state, even if it does business elsewhere. They have to file a foreign qualification to do business in a state where they are not incorporated.
Apple is incorporated in California, so they can do business in California. If they want to open a store in Texas, they file a Statement & Designation by a Foreign Corporation with Texas. Then they can conduct business in Texas. They pay fees and taxes on Texas related business, nowhere else. In California, they might have to pay taxes on business conducted in Texas as well.
Apple is incorporated in California. So if anyone wants to sue Apple for patent infringement, they'll have to do so in California.
Edit: The statement from the Court:
So Apple can be sued anywhere they do business. I guess Apple can pull shops from judicial districts that are patent troll friendly.
Last edited:
Your the only one bringing up their ranking. Nobody mentioned. You don't have to keep defending your terrible court. It's ok, pal.
You are getting roasted in here btw, pal. Maybe take a trip up to Delaware to visit Apple HQ, pal.
No. Under the statute they can be sued where they are incorporated OR where they do business (if they infringe in that other location).
The Supreme Court decision only clarifies that the part before the OR only applies to where they are incorporated.
[doublepost=1495475204][/doublepost]
Probably not. But if I was going to have an office in eastern district Texas I might reconsider.
[doublepost=1495475263][/doublepost]
I'm being roasted? Is that what they call it when macrumors changes the story to correct it to match what I've said?
This is not as cut and dry as the article has made it sound. There are holes big enough to drive a bus through in this ruling, I expect we'll still see many Eastern Texas suits filed but the legal community is still evaluating the full impact of the opinion.
edit: never mind, Mac Rumors posted an update, they are on top of it.
edit: never mind, Mac Rumors posted an update, they are on top of it.
You're right. I had to get it from the horse's mouth (the ruling opinion), because the article was misleading.
Intersting... MacRumor's update now contradicts what is said by Bloomberg, Reuters, WSJ, National Law Review, Washington Post, et. al. I agree early reads on decisions can often be wrong by the press, but what gives you guys so much confidence in the update? (Genuine question.)
The ruling did move the defendant's case from Delaware to Indiana, where they are incorporated, even though their product is sold in Delaware...
From the Washington Post:
The ruling did move the defendant's case from Delaware to Indiana, where they are incorporated, even though their product is sold in Delaware...
From the Washington Post:
Last edited:
Paying lawyers to defend you in the ******** cases costs as much in the ones you lose as well. By forcing trolls to take you to court in a less "troll-friendly" jurisdiction means that they will think twice before they spend the money filing/arguing the case. Since their odds of collection will be much lower.
As is almost always the case, the best way to be sure (for oneself) what the decision says and means is to read it for oneself. This decision is pretty short and there are no dissents or concurrences.
Sometimes it's also necessary to read, e.g., other cases or relevant provisions of U.S. Code. But the best place to start is usually the decision itself. Supreme Court decisions are available on the Supreme Court's website almost immediately after being released in print form in the Court.
I did read it, but to fully appreciate a legal opinion, you really need legal experience... that's why one should read the professional interpretations as well. While I did read that one can sue where one does business, in this case, the defendant won despite doing business in Delaware. So it seems a little contradictory...
