07.26.17
Gemini version available ♊︎“Reprehensible” Rodney Gilstrap Continues to Snub the US Supreme Court by Refusing to Let Non-Texan Companies Move Out of Texas
What can the state do when low courts’ (district) judges simply disregard the highest court in the country?
Summary: Some of the latest news about patent trolls in the United States and China (where they tend to prey on US companies)
WE recently wrote a bunch of articles about the STRONGER Patents Act — a bill which seeks to actually weaken patents by reducing their quality.
The patent microcosm, posting with the hat of “guests” (or so-called “international reports”) at IAM, is trying hard to push this extremist legislation that would help patent trolls. Watch what they published earlier today.
“The patent microcosm, posting with the hat of “guests” (or so-called “international reports”) at IAM, is trying hard to push this extremist legislation that would help patent trolls.”As we noted in the afternoon, these people are also lobbying the USPTO as they cannot influence the courts. Managing IP wrote about it earlier today. To quote: “The USPTO has released a report providing an overview of patent eligibility law and feedback it has received on the issue. A majority of commenters recommended legislative change…”
Well, these comments are from the patent microcosm and its front groups. Hardly a balanced debate, but that’s just more of the same. It’s always the same when they establish panels and debates, as we demonstrated several times last year.
Do SCOTUS decisions matter to these people? How about to notorious judges in Texas?
The “Supreme Court fails to close key avenue for patent trolls,” said this latest headline on the matter (from The Hill) and here is the ‘beef’ of it: [via]
in several recent cases. But with some improvements there are unintended consequences. Case in point: The court’s recent decision curtailing forum shopping in the federal courts may unfortunately cause more abusive patent cases to be filed at the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC).
In May, the Supreme Court issued a landmark opinion in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods, restoring rational venue rules for patent cases in U.S. district courts. The ruling will limit cases brought in magnet districts, such as the U.S. District Court of the Eastern District of Texas, which is a very good outcome that had been sought in the courts and in Congress by reform supporters.
Gilstrap, on the face of it, continues to serve/act more like a front group of patent trolls, not a courier/deliverer of justice. His decisions are typically overturned by courts above him. We wrote about his snubbing of TC Heartland some days ago. Here is today’s Managing IP report titled “Will the Federal Circuit weigh in on Judge Gilstrap’s patent venue test? (mostly behind paywall)
Consensus is growing that TC Heartland was not a change in the law, while a mandamus appeal of the case in which Judge Gilstrap outlined a four-factor test for “regular and established place of business” is being closely watched by patent practitioners
The Federal Circuit will soon have a chance to weigh in on the appropriateness of the four-factor test for venue outlined by an Eastern District of Texas judge, and which was called “reprehensible” by a US Congressman last week.
So what we have here is sheer snobbery and possible abuse by patent trolls and their facilitators. Even judges. Like Rader.
This is pretty bad.
“So what we have here is sheer snobbery and possible abuse by patent trolls and their facilitators. Even judges.”Does the rule of law not matter anymore?
Incidentally, IAM continues to promote patent trolls as well. Hours ago it invited people to this upcoming event which gives a platform to patent trolls like Intellectual Ventures and RPX. Suffice to say, this latest IAM event is sponsored by a lot of notorious patent trolls. IAM had done this before, but what it wrote earlier today reaffirms what we said in the past.
“It’s just a patent troll — something we’re seeing more and more of in China.”More encouragement of patent litigation in China? Sure, you got that in IAM some days ago. It’s destructive to China itself, but IAM gives a platform only to trolls like GPNE. In another new IAM article the chief troll alludes to other trolls as if he himself is not a patent troll. To quote a portion: “A few weeks ago, GPNE CEO Edwin Wong recounted some experiences of how the Chinese trial had gone so far. He confirmed that as in the previous US jury trial, Apple had attempted to raise the issue of GPNE’s status as a company that does not make or sell products. But with no jury in China’s system and judges’ reliance on technical experts this strategy is not necessarily as effective as it might be in the US. Similarly, a key issue in the American litigation was the fact that the specification for the patent-in-suit mentioned pagers. Wong says that the Chinese court has not been hung up on that word, placing substance above label.”
“…ex-Rockstar head John Veschi (chief troll in a notorious patent troll) has changed jobs.”It’s just a patent troll — something we’re seeing more and more of in China. Managing IP wrote earlier this week that “China proposes pharmaceutical patent linkage scheme,” stating that the “China Food and Drug Administration (CFDA) is planning to introduce a patent linkage scheme that will require a generic applicant to make a non-infringement declaration against an innovator’s patent portfolio…”
So much for helping the poor, eh?
Incidentally, another quick writeup from IAM reveals that ex-Rockstar head John Veschi (chief troll in a notorious patent troll) has changed jobs. Quite a few trolls seem to be moving to Asia these days. █
ᶃ Gemini Space
This post is also available in 
Content is available under CC-BY-SA