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 would be wise. The lost sales from one district wouldn't be comparable to the patent losses.
That was actually Marshall Tx. Samsung sponsored an outdoor ice skating rink for the towns Christmas festival.
Not just Apple. In fact, every single wealthy Fortune 500 company that has any potential to be patent trolled should vacate all business in East Texas. (includes Google, Microsoft, Samsung, LG, Tesla, etc)
It would be funny if Amazon did that, so their Amazon website would state a Disclaimer: "We apologize, dear Customer, but Amazon is not able to ship merchandise (or do any business) to East Texas at this time. If you would like, we can ship your products to the nearest Amazon Locker (depot) in West Texas, where it will be ready for your personal pick-up."
You are correct. The square is in front of the Marshall courthouse. Mental hiccup. (I've been to both many times).
So here is a question for those that seem to know a little about this. Would Apple or any other company for that matter, if there product is sold via third party in that district would they still be liable for the product being sold?
Apple would be liable when it comes to possible infringement. But what you describe, in itself, likely would not be enough to allow a patent infringement action against Apple to be brought in that district.
(A plaintiff could of course file suit in that district; but if Apple challenged the action on improper venue grounds, Apple would likely win.)
I suppose you can sue in Oregon if you slip on a wet floor in the Apple store in Oregon, and everyone would agree that's just as it should be. But patent infringement is against the company as a whole, so unless you were to limit your damages to the damages in Oregon, there isn't really a good reason why having a store there should allow you to sue the company as a whole.
[doublepost=1495550379][/doublepost]
My understanding from discussion on other sites is that you can file a lawsuit in the jurisdiction where the defendant resides, and if the defendant doesn't have a residence, then as an alternative you can sue where they have a regular and established place of business.
[doublepost=1495550715][/doublepost]
I think you just misunderstood the complete ruling. The point of this ruling is that the company can be sued in the place of residence, and only if it doesn't have a place of residence, then it can be sued elsewhere. Apple has a place of residence. Google has a place of residence. Microsoft has a place of residence. All can be sued for patent infringement in their place of residence. Nowhere else.
[doublepost=1495550946][/doublepost]
Maybe Apple opens a store, just so that they can close one :-(
Gotcha thank you. I wonder if the wording "authorized re-seller" would come in to play. From the comments here it would seem Apple or any company for that matter would need to not do any business in the area.
If an authorized reseller was truly a third party - a separate entity that was just authorized to sell or service Apple products - then most likely that wouldn't qualify as a regular and established place of business for Apple. Apple can do business in an area, e.g. through online orders or third-party retailers, without having an established place of business there.
The reality is that what a "regular and established place of business" means in this specific context hasn't been thoroughly fleshed out. But various courts have addressed the issue and we're thus able to say with some confidence that certain things would or wouldn't qualify. Other things we can't be as sure about, we'd have to wait and see what a court concludes.
If you want to investigate the matter for yourself, I'd point you to In re Cortis Corp (Federal Circuit, 1985). You can start there and then move on to, e.g., the cases which it refers to. You should be able to find Cortis fairly easily and it's a pretty short decision.
[doublepost=1495555024][/doublepost]
The update is correct.
I'm not (otherwise) aware of what they're saying on those other sites, but if they're saying what you suggest then they are wrong. The patent venue statute is pretty clear on this point and, even if it isn't, various court considerations of the matter make it clear: A patent infringement action can be brought either where a defendant (to include a corporation) is resident or where a defendant (to include a corporation) has a regular and established place of business and has committed acts of infringement. Courts will (and have) consider(ed) both possibilities when trying to decide whether a given venue is proper. A plaintiff only needs to prevail on their proper venue argument based on one of the conditions.
Thank you for the explanation, having dealt with courts on the criminal side, when words like "most likely" brings up flags.
Again thank you for the references and clear explanation.
No, that's not right. It's either/or. The statute is clear. And everyone has a "residence" (if they are a domestic corporation) so your interpretation would make no sense in any case.
So this is a non story story.
Update: The appears to be considerable confusion throughout media coverage of this ruling. The ruling narrowly limited a company's "residence" to the place of incorporation, but patent lawsuits may still be filed anywhere "the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business." As a result, it appears patent lawsuits can still be filed against Apple in many jurisdictions, including the Eastern District of Texas.
Article Link: Supreme Court Ruling Should Spell the End of Apple's Patent Troll Battles in East Texas [Updated]
It's a huge story. It just won't likely help Apple all that much unless they take steps to not have a business presence in EDTex (but it will help many other companies).
To be clear, the Eastern District stretches over to include Denton and Collin counties, so Apple does have a couple of stores in the Plano/Frisco area that qualify them as doing business in the district.
https://www.apple.com/retail/willowbend/
https://www.apple.com/retail/stonebriar/
To be clear, the Eastern District stretches over to include Denton and Collin counties, so Apple does have a couple of stores in the Plano/Frisco area that qualify them as doing business in the district.
https://www.apple.com/retail/willowbend/
https://www.apple.com/retail/stonebriar/
I wonder if they will remain given the outcome of this decision. Wonder if they will close those shops? Wonder how many other stores or business will close because of this.
People way overblow how favorable EDTX is to patent owners. The data shows the advantage is relatively tiny when all is said and done. I highly doubt Apple would close stores just to try to avoid litigating in a certain jurisdiction.
Look, Apple is nearly a trillion-dollar company with it's hands in nearly every cookie jar of the world economy. Being sued, all the time and in every jurisdiction is just a matter of life for a company like that.
There's one small problem. Houston, Texas looks like it might be part of the Eastern district.
http://texasalmanac.com/topics/government/federal-courts-texas
There are no Apple stores in ETX.
[doublepost=1495605413][/doublepost]
There are no Apple stores in ETX.
Houston is in the Southern District.
[doublepost=1495631569][/doublepost]
Apple's website shows an Apple Store in Plano which (according to the store's map location) is in Collins County. Collins County is in the Eastern District.
Does Apple not actually have a store in Plano?
argh....
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houston_County,_Texas
I may need a GIS system. Otherwise a simple question like "What's the largest population center within the 40 odd counties fitting either wholly or partially into the Eastern District of Texas" turns out to be rather tedious to answer.
Just for the record your quote was from someone else but it was listed as being from me. (Nested quotes get mixed-up easily!)