1,181
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Just four years after Congress passed Some claim that the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, concentration of patent legislation has resurfaced litigation cases filed in the 114th Congress with the introduction Eastern District of the [[Innovation Act]] (HTexas proves that patent reform is necessary.R. 9) in Supposedly, patent trolls fill the House and the [[PATENT Act]] (S.1137) in courts of the Senate, legislation that is intended to enact sweeping reform Eastern District of Texas with litigation because the current judges there incentivize patent system and combat abusive patent litigationtrolls to file in their district. The House Lawyers claim that the district's rules and procedures make it more difficult and Senate Judiciary Committees have been working more expensive to prevent supposed [[Patent Trolls|defend patent trolls]] from filing frivolous litigation and stifling innovation in the United Stateslawsuits. Congressmen on However, some lawyers also state that these committees have used procedures were simply an attempt to manage the term "huge number of patent trolls" interchangeably with cases the terms "[[Patent Assertion Entities|Eastern District of Texas receives each year. Letting plaintiffs choose where their case is considered allows patent assertion entities]]" and "[[Non-Practicing Entities|nonlitigation to concentrate in an area that has a reputation of being plaintiff-practicing entities]]friendly."
Some claim that the concentration The Eastern District of Texas rose in prominence as a court of patent litigation cases filed due to the patent monetization strategy that Texas Instruments used in the Eastern District of 1980s to save itself from bankruptcy. By the 1990s, Texas acts as proof that Instruments was earning more money from patent reform is necessarylitigation 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. SupposedlyHowever, patent trolls fill high volumes of criminal cases had begun impeding speedy trials in Dallas, where Texas Instruments is based, so the courts 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 with litigation because the judges are pro-patent troll and provide incentives for patent trolls to file in their districtdoes not have an FBI office or a U.S. HoweverAttorney's office, history and statistics tell a different storywhich lightens its criminal caseload from the drug offense cases that usually inundate other federal courthouses.
The Eastern District of Texas Judge T. John Ward began to rise hearing patent cases after he was sworn in prominence due to on the patent monetization strategy that East Texas Instruments used federal bench in 1999 and developed a set of rules for the 1980s to save itself from bankruptcycourt that counteracted the traditionally slow pace of patent cases. By These changes, including page limits on document and strictly timed opening and closing documents, earned Marshall the 1990sreputation of being a "rocket docket." Consequently, the Eastern District of Texas Instruments was earning more money from soon inundated with patent litigation than it was earning from operationssuits filed by companies who wanted to resolve their conflicts quickly. To maintain its profitsHowever, 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 Eastern District of Texas Instruments had , compared to continue using around a year in Eastern Virginia, which receives far fewer patent litigation cases. In 2002, 32 patent lawsuits were filed in the court to extract royalties from those using their patents without permissionEastern District of Texas. HoweverIn 2015, the district received 2, high volumes 540 patent litigation cases. This constituted 43.6% of criminal all patent litigation cases had begun impeding speedy trials filed in the United States in Dallas2015. According to PricewaterhouseCoopers, where Texas Instruments is based, so the company looked toward Marshallpercentage of patent litigation cases in the most active districts continues to increase, where criminal cases made up only 10 percent leading to increased concentrations of patent litigation in certain districts of the docketUnited States. Although it is a federal districtFrom 2012 to 2015, 4, 350 patent lawsuits were filed with Judge Rodney Gilstrap of the Eastern District of Texas does not have an FBI office or a U.S. Attorney's office, which lightens its criminal caseload from was 3,000 more cases than were filed with the drug offense cases that usually inundate other federal courthousesnext highest judge.
Judge T. John Ward began hearing However, this rise in the number of patent cases after he was sworn in on lawsuits matches the East Texas federal bench increase in 1999 and developed a set numbers of rules for patents granted by the court that counteracted U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. From 2009 to 2015, the traditionally slow pace number of patent casespatents applications filed increased from 460,924 to 580,327. These changes189,120 patents were granted in 2009, including page limits on document and strictly timed opening and closing documentswhile 325, earned Marshall the reputation 037 patents were granted in 2015. The number of being a "rocket docketpatent lawsuits increased from 2,560 in 2009 to 5,378 in 2015." ConsequentlyThe patent litigation rate has remained relatively steady, the Eastern District with rates of 1.4 percent in 2009 and 1.7 percent in 2015. This time period saw a low of 1.1 percent in 2010 and a high of Texas was soon inundated with patent suits filed by companies who wanted to resolve their conflicts quickly2.0 percent in 2013.
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 The Eastern District of Texas, compared had 55 decisions from 1995 to around a year in Eastern Virginia. In 20022014 involving [[Non-Practicing Entities|non-practicing entities]] (NPEs) as patent holders, 32 patent lawsuits and 49 percent of these NPEs were filed successful in the Eastern Districttheir patent litigation cases. In 2015, the The Eastern District of Texas received 2,540 patent litigation cases. This constitutes 43.6% decided a total of all 148 patent litigation cases filed in the United Statesfrom 1995 to 2014, which is more than the cases of all districts outside the top three combined (41.9means that decisions involving NPEs made up 37%). According to PricewaterhouseCoopers, the percentage of patent litigation cases in the most active districts continues to increase, leading to increased concentrations of patent litigation total decisions in certain districts of the United States. From 2012 to 2015, 4,350 patent lawsuits were filed with Judge Rodney Gilstrap of the Eastern District of Texas, which was 3,000 more cases than were filed with the next highest judgeduring this time period.
PricewaterhouseCoopers statistics show that the Eastern District Nationally, practicing entities had an overall success rate of Texas had 55 decisions 35 percent in 2015 involving [[patent litigation cases. Non-Practicing Entities|practicing entities had a lower success rate of 26 percent. Out of the types of non-practicing entities]] (NPEs) as patent holders, which was universities and non-profits were the most in the country, successful with a 48 percent success rate. Companies and 49 percent of NPEs for-profit organizations were successful in 31 percent of their patent litigation cases, which is almost double the national average of 26 and individual and investors succeeded only 18 percent. Decisions involving NPEs made up 37% of the total decisions in the Eastern District of Texastime.
The increase in Congress' push for patent reform creates the perception that patent litigation trolls are constantly abusing patents and preventing innovation. However, less than 2 percent of patents in 2015 was caused the United States are actually litigated, and there has not been a significant change in part by the rise amount of high-volume plaintiffs, or patent owners litigation that file at least 10 cases in would warrant a calendar yearcomplete reform of the current patent system.
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]]."
