Definitely good news, although not for Marshall, TX. From what I understand, legal 'tourism' generated by all the patent suits is quite the industry there.
Patent trolls are kind of like pornography. Everyone knows them when they see them, but writing laws to combat them is easier said than done. Hopefully this will help.
So such actions can be brought either where a company is incorporated or where it has a regular and established place of business and has committed acts of infringement.
Correct, which means, it is going to get a tad harder for the trolls to initiated a litigation in that Texan area where the jury is illiterate. Now they also need to have a case that Apple is infrindging on their IP specifically in that area.
So such actions can be brought either where a company is incorporated or where it has a regular and established place of business and has committed acts of infringement.
Correct, which means, it is going to get a tad harder for the trolls to initiated a litigation in that Texan area where the jury is illiterate. Now they also need to have a case that Apple is infrindging on their IP specifically in that area.
If a given plaintiff has a case that Apple is guilty of infringement in general, then it will most likely have a case that Apple is guilty of infringement in an area where Apple has, e.g, an Apple Store. In other words, the regular and established place of business requirement will likely be a bigger hurdle than the acts of infringement requirement.
I would not say that would always be the case. I can think of situations where there might be a place of business but where (alleged) acts of infringement wouldn't have occurred. But that would be the exception rather than the rule. Lots of actions can qualify as infringement - e.g., using, selling, or offering to sell a patented invention (or, speaking practically, something which incorporates a patented invention).
And here we'd be talking about a preliminary challenge to an action that was brought. So in considering whether to grant a defendant's improper venue motion, a court would generally be considering the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party - i.e., the plaintiff. If the facts which the plaintiff alleged (but which the defendant might dispute) would establish infringement in the given jurisdiction, then that would suffice for meeting that requirement of the proper venue consideration.
Comments
I would not say that would always be the case. I can think of situations where there might be a place of business but where (alleged) acts of infringement wouldn't have occurred. But that would be the exception rather than the rule. Lots of actions can qualify as infringement - e.g., using, selling, or offering to sell a patented invention (or, speaking practically, something which incorporates a patented invention).
And here we'd be talking about a preliminary challenge to an action that was brought. So in considering whether to grant a defendant's improper venue motion, a court would generally be considering the facts in the light most favorable to the non-moving party - i.e., the plaintiff. If the facts which the plaintiff alleged (but which the defendant might dispute) would establish infringement in the given jurisdiction, then that would suffice for meeting that requirement of the proper venue consideration.