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
Despite what The Wall Street Journal and several other media outlets are saying, I think this is accurate. I regret seemingly falling into the trap of "fake news." The difference with Apple is that it has retail stores that fall within the Eastern District of Texas, so it has an established business presence in that jurisdiction and, by the sounds of it, can be rightfully sued there for alleged patent infringement still.
[doublepost=1495478124][/doublepost]
I ensure you that's not the case. I was misguided by the dozen or so credible media publications that positioned this news with the angle that I also did. However, I admit that I failed to "do my homework" in this situation. I strive for factualness and accuracy at all times, so trust me when I say that this disappoints me. MacRumors has never instructed me to write articles in a manner that gets "quick clicks," and it's not something I stand for.
I guess if it has a single customer in E Texas it has shipped a product to by Fedex one could at least claim they have business there. Does this help at at all?
Even legitimate lawfirms have added to the confusion. The problem is that people are quoting the "you can only be sued where you have been incorporated line" from the court order, but that line needs to be read in the context of what is actually being dealt with by the Court. The poorly-phrased line was referring only to one prong of the statute and was never intended to deal with the other, but even lawfirms are sending out press releases where they are not clearly pointing that out.
[doublepost=1495478385][/doublepost]
That might not fly, since it wouldn't be a situation with a regular business presence there. Would depend on the circumstances.
That likely wouldn't meet the regular and established place of business requirement.
This is sort of my point... I thought the law was somewhat inconsistent on what constitutes "doing business in". It seems only having a "physical store" is a little dated (if I ship $100 million of products to Texas, but have no store, am I really not doing business there?).
Maybe this decision won't affect Apple significantly, but for Apple developers, this could be a big deal. A small developer selling an App in the AppStore could have been sued in Texas or any state, but now it sounds like they could only be sued in their home state. That makes patent trolling much more expensive.
Yes, fully understanding the meaning of some legal decisions requires some background knowledge. Often enough that isn't the case though. And even without the right background knowledge, one can usually - if they're willing to put forth enough effort - start with the decision and then run down the knowledge they need to fully understand it. They can, e.g., read the provisions of code that are referred to or read various earlier cases cited in the decision.
This decision seems to me to be the kind that's fairly easy to get the import of, even without having much background knowledge going in.
EDIT: You may be confusing what the decision indicated about the plaintiff (i.e. the respondent) with what it indicated about the defendant (i.e. the petitioner), or else you're conflating doing business somewhere (e.g. by shipping stuff there) with having an established place of business there. The plaintiff apparently had an established place of business in Delaware, but the defendant apparently did not.
I'm beginning to think there really isn't all that much contradiction, it's just the perspective one looks at it from: If you have a physical presence in the state, it doesn't matter (e.g. Apple). But if you only ship there (small companies), then this is a big deal. So for small companies, it could be a big disincentive for patent trolls to sue them individually in different states. To a big company, not much has changed. Would you agree?cmaier said:
I won't pretend to know for sure, but it doesn't seem to me that was the case here.
After reading some of the comments in this thread I've looked at some of the news reports and it seems that many of them are (or were) misreporting the meaning of this decision. As I suggested before, that doesn't surprise me.
I suspect this was an honest (and, frankly, understandable) mistake (i.e. taking what other established news sources reported as correct).
I appreciate your response, actually, and I believe you. Thanks for the clarification.
I used to have a client there that I would visit regularly. Your assessment is 100% accurate.
Adding even more of a twist, a few prior cases have held that a company has a place of business anywhere their website can be accessed to do business - e.g., place an order. While I don't think it was a SCOTUS case, so it's not mandatory law, it's still a pretty valid argument I think.
Companies like Apple can easily choose to block their ordering pages in one area and not in another based on IP or customer's shipping/billing address. They already do so to determine currency, or whether they will even sell in a certain country.
To the extent they really want to avoid a certain court, they would have to not only close all their Apple stores there, but would also have to actively prohibit selling online in that area too.
Basically, I don't think this is a huge change. I think plaintiffs will have to do a little bit more legwork to show a venue is proper, but it isn't going to be the mega patent litigation venue reversal most folks were hoping for.
I used to live in Austin and travel around a bit 30-odd years ago, still love going to parts of TX just to eat. The only reason to go to Tyler IMHO is to snag some brisket and Frito pies from Stanley's. To go, of course - there's no other reason to visit (or stay in) Tyler. Marshall's economy is going to suffer a bit too - I'm surmising no more ice skating parties held by Samsung are going to get scheduled (see Page 13 of the decision for more on this…) anytime soon!
I read the decision by the Supreme Court, IMHO MR's summary isn't completely accurate. IMHO Congress opened up a bunch of stupid (I'm not doing the "jumped the shark" bit here) on this with conflicts with §1391 and IMO not performing legal due diligence, but - again - it's Congress and the general being paid-under-the-table wacky shenanigans at play here. There's legal references going back to 1789 in the decision, and I write contracts so I'll be doing a bit of reading on this matter as I'm submitting some patent documentation in the coming weeks.
I'll be interested to see if Tyler's Chamber of Commerce will be putting something like "Come for the BBQ, and stay for, uh, we can't think of any reason to stay here…" on their website. :evil grin:
[doublepost=1495485654][/doublepost]
I read the decision by the Supreme Court, IMHO MR's summary isn't completely accurate. IMHO Congress opened up a bunch of stupid (I'm not doing the "jumped the shark" bit here) on this with conflicts with §1391 and IMO not performing legal due diligence, but - again - it's Congress and the general being paid-under-the-table wacky shenanigans at play here. There's legal references going back to 1789 in the decision, and I write contracts so I'll be doing a bit of reading on this matter as I'm submitting some patent documentation in the coming weeks.
I'll be interested to see if Tyler's Chamber of Commerce will be putting something like "Come for the BBQ, and stay for, uh, we can't think of any reason to stay here…" on their website. :evil grin:
[doublepost=1495485654][/doublepost]
"assure"?
ars Technica has an article about the case with some background:
Don't put a store there and if there is one move it to the county line opposite that district!
Very much this! I'd like to see Apple, and a bunch of other companies pull entirely out of the Eastern District of Texas, saving themselves some future headaches, and so that said district can benefit fully from the fruits of their labor.
It's actually a nice little town if you ask me. What's truly awful is the traffic in Dallas compared to a much quieter place like Tyler....
One fun wrinkle - not clear this applies to foreign companies (on its face it is "domestic" companies).
Not picking on you but some patent lawyers seem to think it is. From the Ars Technica website:
"This extremely important decision radically changes where patent lawsuits may be filed, and blows the 'Eastern District of Texas' problem out of the water," said Q. Todd Dickinson, a senior partner at Polsinelli LLC and a former director of the US Patent and Trademark Office."
How this specifically affects Apple I'm still not sure. Today's decision says that Apple can definitely not be considered a resident of East Texas. So lawsuits would have to appeal to the second prong of 1400(b) which refers to having an established business and committing an act of infringement. How easy it is to establish venue based on that, I'm not sure.
I would be surprised if Apple was one corporation. Usually a corporation this large has multiple entities and may even have patents held by one one entity and products sold through licensing by another. Don't know for sure, but I have worked for much smaller organizations that, for various reasons legal and economic, were made up of multiple corporations.
I'm not aware of the Supreme Court providing definitive guidance on what would qualify as "a regular and established place of business" with specific regard to 28 USC §1400(b). But other courts have addressed that issue, perhaps most notably the Federal Circuit in In re Cordis Corp (1985). Past cases don't provide us with as much clarity as we might like, but I'm confident that in this context what you refer to - a business' website being accessible from a given location - would not be enough. Apple selling products online to people in ABC, Montana would not mean that Apple, for purposes of 28 USC §1400(b), has a regular and established place of business there.
To be clear, a physical location is not necessarily required. But there'd need to be something more than a company having customers in, taking orders from, and shipping products to a given area.
[doublepost=1495492641][/doublepost]
I think in some contexts - e.g., for some would-be defendants - this decision is of great importance. In others? Not so much.
As for the second venue possibility referred to in 28 USC §1400(b), there are lots of ways in which a company might qualify as having a regular and established place of business in a particular area. For Apple, having an Apple Store might be the most obvious one. I'm fairly confident that having an Apple Store in an area would meet the place of business requirement.
[doublepost=1495493412][/doublepost]
I suppose the Supreme Court could revisit the matter (e.g., based on subsequent changes to the wording of certain provisions of law), but for now it's settled law: Patent infringement actions against foreign corporations can be brought in any federal district, despite 28 USC §1400(b).
Unfortunately, I live in East Texas (Tyler in fact). And unfortunately, THERE ARE NO APPLE STORES TO CLOSE HERE.
don't rub it in
Believe it or not, I've actually enjoyed my visits to Tyler. Some nice restaurants. Marshall, on the other hand... (shudder)
If you want to see just how ridiculous the patent industry in Tyler, TX is, watch this movie. It was made by a software developer who was sued by a patent troll for simply selling his software on the Google Play store. He goes to Tyler to investigate. It's shocking. Makes the blood boil.
http://www.thepatentscam.com
http://www.thepatentscam.com
