I'm no good at US law.. So what happended here is that NYT got infringement notice from Lodsys and then took it directly to the court to have it establish that NYT does not infringe?
And they want it heard in Chicago, IL, since that is very the sole employee of Lodsys has residence?
Is the texas court system known for ruling in patent trolls, like Lodsys, favor?
To answer your last question, yes, east Texas is known for favoring patent holders in cases of infringement[1]. It doesn't seem to matter if neither party actually has a presence in Texas even.
Recent legal precedent in the USA makes it easier for someone receiving a demand letter like this to go straight to court, rather than waiting to be sued themselves. The biggest advantage is that by doing this, they get much more latitude in picking the location of the trial, which can be beneficial both in saving travel expense and in terms of jurisdiction. The Times is asking the court to find that they don't infringe, but is also asking the court to invalidate Lodsys' patents, which would also stop them from suing anyone else.
You can generally only file suit in a location where both parties have a demonstrated business presence. The Times publishes nationwide, so they presumably picked Illinois for the reason you mention.
The East Texas federal courts are believed to have a bias in favor of patent-holders in IP cases, and are known for processing cases quickly. So, it's popular for patent trolls and others to file suit there to get an advantage.
Don't MS already have a licence? I thought that was part of the problem, the big software shops had just ponied up the dough when the patent was owned by IV or whoever it was.
1. If a patent owner creates an actual "case or controversy," for example by making an accusation of infringement, then the target of the accusation doesn't need to sit around wondering when and where it will be sued. It can instead file its own lawsuit asking for a declaratory judgment. This is what the NY Times has done.
2. Tactically, Lodsys might file a motion to transfer the case on grounds that key witnesses and/or documents would be more conveniently available in another court, so much so that it should override the NY Times's right to choose its forum. (Choosing to sue in the home jurisdiction of Lodsys's CEO was an intriguing move.)
3. In many cases, the patent owner will try to have a "D-J" (declaratory judgment) case thrown out, on grounds that supposedly there's no actual case or controversy because there hasn't been an accusation of infringement. That seems unlikely here, because the NY Times's complaint quotes the Lodsys letter as pretty clearly accusing the Times of infringement (see paragraph 13).
4. The Eastern District of Texas is indeed favored by "NPEs" (aka trolls), but in part because a couple of the judges there are experienced in patent cases and run a tight ship. As far as patent-owner win rate, there's been at least some research suggesting that the Eastern District isn't even in the top 5. [1]
8 comments
[ 3.8 ms ] story [ 41.9 ms ] threadAnd they want it heard in Chicago, IL, since that is very the sole employee of Lodsys has residence?
Is the texas court system known for ruling in patent trolls, like Lodsys, favor?
1. http://www.technologyreview.com/communications/16280/page1/
Basically, you've got it.
Recent legal precedent in the USA makes it easier for someone receiving a demand letter like this to go straight to court, rather than waiting to be sued themselves. The biggest advantage is that by doing this, they get much more latitude in picking the location of the trial, which can be beneficial both in saving travel expense and in terms of jurisdiction. The Times is asking the court to find that they don't infringe, but is also asking the court to invalidate Lodsys' patents, which would also stop them from suing anyone else.
You can generally only file suit in a location where both parties have a demonstrated business presence. The Times publishes nationwide, so they presumably picked Illinois for the reason you mention.
The East Texas federal courts are believed to have a bias in favor of patent-holders in IP cases, and are known for processing cases quickly. So, it's popular for patent trolls and others to file suit there to get an advantage.
Out of all the websites with supposed infringement, Best Buy, etc why no targeting of Microsoft?
Given IV's history it does cause some wonder
1. If a patent owner creates an actual "case or controversy," for example by making an accusation of infringement, then the target of the accusation doesn't need to sit around wondering when and where it will be sued. It can instead file its own lawsuit asking for a declaratory judgment. This is what the NY Times has done.
2. Tactically, Lodsys might file a motion to transfer the case on grounds that key witnesses and/or documents would be more conveniently available in another court, so much so that it should override the NY Times's right to choose its forum. (Choosing to sue in the home jurisdiction of Lodsys's CEO was an intriguing move.)
3. In many cases, the patent owner will try to have a "D-J" (declaratory judgment) case thrown out, on grounds that supposedly there's no actual case or controversy because there hasn't been an accusation of infringement. That seems unlikely here, because the NY Times's complaint quotes the Lodsys letter as pretty clearly accusing the Times of infringement (see paragraph 13).
4. The Eastern District of Texas is indeed favored by "NPEs" (aka trolls), but in part because a couple of the judges there are experienced in patent cases and run a tight ship. As far as patent-owner win rate, there's been at least some research suggesting that the Eastern District isn't even in the top 5. [1]
[1] See the Lemley article linked and discussed at http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2010/05/patent-litigation-fo...