1,181
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Just four years Judge T. John Ward began hearing patent cases after Congress passed he was sworn in on the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, patent legislation has resurfaced East Texas federal bench in 1999 and developed a set of rules for the 114th Congress with court that counteracted the introduction traditionally slow pace of patent cases. These changes, including page limits on document and strictly timed opening and closing documents, earned Marshall the [[Innovation Act]] (Hreputation of being a "rocket docket.R" Consequently, the Eastern District of Texas was soon inundated with patent suits filed by companies who wanted to resolve their conflicts quickly. 9) However, this "rocket docket" claim is no longer true, as it now takes two to three years on average for a patent suit to reach trial in the House and the [[PATENT Act]] (SEastern District of Texas, compared to around a year in Eastern Virginia, which receives far fewer patent litigation cases.1137) In 2002, 32 patent lawsuits were filed in the SenateEastern District of Texas. In 2015, legislation that is intended to enact sweeping reform of the current district received 2,540 patent system and combat abusive litigation cases. This constituted 43.6% of all patent litigationcases filed in the United States in 2015. The House and Senate Judiciary Committees have been working According to PricewaterhouseCoopers, the percentage of patent litigation cases in the most active districts continues to increase, leading to prevent supposed [[Patent Trolls|increased concentrations of patent trolls]] from filing frivolous litigation and stifling innovation in certain districts of the United States. Congressmen on these committees have used From 2012 to 2015, 4,350 patent lawsuits were filed with Judge Rodney Gilstrap of the term "patent trolls" interchangeably Eastern District of Texas, which was 3,000 more cases than were filed with the terms "[[Patent Assertion Entities|patent assertion entities]]" and "[[Non-Practicing Entities|non-practicing entities]]next highest judge."
Some claim that However, this rise in the concentration number of patent litigation cases filed lawsuits matches the increase in numbers of patents granted by the Eastern District of Texas acts as proof that patent reform is necessaryU.S. Patent and Trademark Office. SupposedlyFrom 2009 to 2015, patent trolls fill the courts number of the Eastern District patents applications filed increased from 460,924 to 580,327. 189,120 patents were granted in 2009, while 325,037 patents were granted in 2015. The number of Texas with litigation because the judges are pro-patent troll and provide incentives for patent trolls lawsuits increased from 2,560 in 2009 to file 5,378 in their district2015. HoweverThe patent litigation rate has remained relatively steady, history with rates of 1.4 percent in 2009 and statistics tell 1.7 percent in 2015. This time period saw a different storylow of 1.1 percent in 2010 and a high of 2.0 percent in 2013.
Although it is a federal districtThe Eastern District of Texas had 55 decisions from 1995 to 2014 involving [[Non-Practicing Entities|non-practicing entities]] (NPEs) as patent holders, the and 49 percent of these NPEs were successful in their patent litigation cases. The Eastern District of Texas does not have an FBI office or decided a U.S. Attorney's officetotal of 148 patent litigation cases from 1995 to 2014, which lightens its criminal caseload from drug offense cases means that inundate other federal courthousesdecisions involving NPEs made up 37% of the total decisions in the Eastern District of Texas during this time period.
The Eastern District Nationally, practicing entities had an overall success rate of Texas began to rise 35 percent in prominence due to the patent monetization strategy that Texas Instruments used in the 1980s to save itself from bankruptcylitigation cases. Non-practicing entities had a lower success rate of 26 percent. By Out of the 1990stypes of non-practicing entities, Texas Instruments was earning more money from patent litigation than it was earning from operations. To maintain its universities and non-profits, Texas Instruments had to continue using were the court to extract royalties from those using their patents without permissionmost successful with a 48 percent success rate. However, high volumes Companies and for-profit organizations were successful in 31 percent of criminal their litigation cases had begun impeding speedy trials in Dallas, where Texas Instruments is based, so the company looked toward Marshall, where criminal cases made up and individual and investors succeeded only 10 18 percent of the time.
Judge T. John Ward began hearing Congress' push for patent cases after he was sworn in on the East Texas federal bench in 1999 and developed a set of rules for reform creates the court perception that counteracted the traditionally slow pace of patent casestrolls are constantly abusing patents and preventing innovation. These changesHowever, less than 2 percent of patents in the United States are actually litigated, including page limits on document and strictly timed opening and closing documents, earned Marshall there has not been a significant change in the reputation amount of being patent litigation that would warrant a "rocket docket." Consequently, complete reform of the Eastern District of Texas was soon inundated with current patent suits filed by companies who wanted to resolve their conflicts quicklysystem.
no edit summary
Back to [[The Truth Behind About Patent Trolls]]
The Eastern District of Texas is located in the Fifth Circuit of the United States Court of Appeals. Patent claims in this district are appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Marshall, Texas, located in the Eastern District of Texas, has become "the unlikely patent litigation capital of America" [http://www.texasmonthly.com/politics/patently-unfair/ (Texas Monthly)] and has gained a reputation for being a "rocket docket" for patent cases. [https://www.technologyreview.com/s/405259/a-haven-for-patent-pirates/ (MIT Technology Review)] However, this "rocket docket" claim is no longer true, as it takes two to three years on average for a patent suit to reach trial in the Eastern District of Texas, compared to around a year in Eastern Virginia. [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2013/01/east-texas-courts-are-back-on-top-for-patent-lawsuits/ (Ars Technica)] In 2002, 32 patent lawsuits were filed in the Eastern District. [http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/business/24ward.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1&ref=technology&oref=slogin (New York Times)] In 2015, the Eastern District of Texas received 2,540 patent litigation cases. This constitutes 43.6% of all patent litigation cases filed in the United States, which is more than the cases of all districts outside the top three combined (41.9%). [https://lexmachina.com/lex-machina-2015-end-of-year-trends/ (Lex Machina)] According to [https://www.pwc.com/us/en/forensic-services/publications/assets/2015-pwc-patent-litigation-study.pdf PricewaterhouseCoopers], the percentage of patent litigation cases in the most active districts continues to increase, leading to increased concentrations of patent litigation in certain districts of the United States. From 2012 to 2015, 4,350 patent lawsuits were filed with Judge Rodney Gilstrap, which was 3,000 more cases than were filed with the next highest judge. [https://lexmachina.com/lex-machina-2015-end-of-year-trends/ (Lex Machina)]
Lawyers claim that the district's rules and procedures make it more difficult and more expensive to defend patent lawsuits. However, some lawyers also state that these procedures were not a result of corruption, but simply an attempt to manage the huge number of patent cases the Eastern District of Texas receives each year. Permitting plaintiffs to choose where their case is considered allows patent litigation to concentrate in an area that has a reputation of being plaintiff-friendly. [http://www.corpcounsel.com/id=1202747043717/Will-This-Case-End-East-Texas-Reign-as-the-Patent-Litigation-Capital?mcode=0&curindex=0&curpage=ALL (Corporate Counsel)]
[https://www.pwc.com/us/en/forensic-services/publications/assets/2015-pwc-patent-litigation-study.pdf PricewaterhouseCoopers] statistics show that the Eastern District of Texas had 55 decisions in 2015 involving [[Non-Practicing Entities|non-practicing entities]] (NPEs) as patent holders, which was the most in the country, and 49 percent of NPEs were successful in their patent litigation cases, which is almost double the national average of 26 percent. Decisions involving NPEs made up 37% of the total decisions in the Eastern District of Texas.
Judge T. John Ward began hearing patent cases after he was sworn in on the East Texas federal bench in 1999 and developed a set of rules for the court that counteracted the traditionally slow pace of patent cases. These changes, including page limits on document and strictly timed opening and closing documents, earned Marshall the reputation of being a "rocket docket." Consequently, the Eastern District of Texas was soon inundated with patent suits filed by companies who wanted to resolve their conflicts quickly. [http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/24/business/24ward.html?_ (NYT)]
==AnalysisBlog Post== Just four years after Congress passed the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, patent legislation has resurfaced in the 114th Congress with the introduction of the [[Innovation Act]] (H.R. 9) in the House and the [[PATENT Act]] (S.1137) in the Senate, legislation that is intended to enact sweeping reform of the current patent system and combat abusive patent litigation. The House and Senate Judiciary Committees have been working to prevent supposed [[Patent Trolls|patent trolls]] from filing frivolous litigation and stifling innovation in the United States. The term "patent troll" is often used interchangeably with the terms "[[Patent Assertion Entities|patent assertion entities]]" and "[[Non-Practicing Entities|non-practicing entities]]." Some claim that the concentration of patent litigation cases filed in the Eastern District of Texas proves that patent reform is necessary. Supposedly, patent trolls fill the courts of the Eastern District of Texas with litigation because the judges there incentivize patent trolls to file in their district. Lawyers claim that the district's rules and procedures make it more difficult and more expensive to defend patent lawsuits. However, some lawyers also state that these procedures were simply an attempt to manage the huge number of patent cases the Eastern District of Texas receives each year. Letting plaintiffs choose where their case is considered allows patent litigation to concentrate in an area that has a reputation of being plaintiff-friendly. The Eastern District of Texas rose in prominence as a court of patent litigation due to the patent monetization strategy that Texas Instruments used in the 1980s to save itself from bankruptcy. By the 1990s, Texas Instruments was earning more money from patent litigation than it was earning from operations. To maintain its profits, Texas Instruments had to continue using the court to extract royalties from those using their patents without permission. However, high volumes of criminal cases had begun impeding speedy trials in Dallas, where Texas Instruments is based, so the company looked toward Marshall, Texas, where criminal cases made up only 10 percent of the docket. Although it is a federal district, the Eastern District of Texas does not have an FBI office or a U.S. Attorney's office, which lightens its criminal caseload from the drug offense cases that usually inundate other federal courthouses.
