The CAFC was established not to prevent the naively labeled “problem” of patentees finding so-called “friendly” forums, but rather to resolve the uncertainty litigants were finding in the court system.

Sorry to dissapoint you anarchists here at Techdirt, but the reason for the CAFC was not because someone naively though, like you, that “patents are bad,” but because many of the federal courts were ill-prepared to deal with complex patent issues and the outcomes were all over the map.

So the establishment of the CAFC was an indictment of certain federal courts that were wreaking havoc by their shoddy jurisprudence. It was never to prevent forum shopping. Excessive forum shopping was just a symptom of a disease within the federal court system when it came to trying patent cases.

The Eastern District of Virginia is a shining example of how a patent court should work and is also a favorite of patentees. Of course, you wont find that note here at Techdirt, it doesn’t fit the deconstructionist agenda.

From Michael Smith, ” ‘Patent Pirates’ Only Exist in Neverland,” Texas Lawyer, October 11, 2004:

“Efficient rules and speedy trial settings are the remedy for a small defendant who has a valid defense on the merits but simply cannot afford to litigate it. As the article notes, courts in the Eastern District of Texas have become national leaders in patent litigation, because they provide a relatively quick system for resolving patent disputes, which reduces the cost of preparing a case for both sides. This efficiency is due in part to several of the judges’ use of special rules for patent cases and their continuation of the district’s tradition of early, firm trial settings. Some lawyers perceive speedy trial settings and discovery limitations as benefiting plaintiffs, but in expensive commercial litigation, they work in small defendants’ favor as well.

Also, the claim that a quick docket is a gun to a defendant’s head in a patent case is demonstrably false. A recent confidential survey of Eastern District patent practitioners, now posted on the Eastern District Web site at http://www.txed.uscourts.gov/, made clear that most defense counsel do not perceive the court’s quick trial settings as harmful. In fact, the settings provide a way of defending a case on the merits that would otherwise cost too much, and one that is far less disruptive than the government determining who can and cannot possess intellectual property rights. A small patent defendant that thinks it can defend the case on the merits should want to be in the Eastern District, where it will have possibly the cheapest path to a trial setting anywhere in the nation.

He’s saying that being for or against forum shopping is a lot like saying you’re for or against cloudy days. Forum shopping happens – so what.

And I can’t understand why a blog hack thinks he has the qualification to talk about the establishment of the CAFC or forum shopping for that matter.

Idiots…

FYI: legal definition – forum shopping:

The process by which a plaintiff chooses among two or more courts that have the power–technically, the correct jurisdiction and venue–to consider his case. This decision is based on which court is likely to consider the case most favorably. In some instances, a case can properly be filed in two or more federal district courts as well as in the trial courts of several states–and this makes forum shopping a complicated business. It often involves weighing a number of factors, including proximity to the court, the reputation of the judge in the particular legal area, the likely type of available jurors and subtle differences in governing law and procedure.

So what?! To focus on forum shopping belies the chronic naivete and ignorance found at Techdirt when it comes to legal issues. If possible, why don’t you stick to something you know about.

Forum shopping is a natural part of the decision making process when bringing a suit that is actionable in several venues as noted in the definition posted above from Nolo press.

On a bad day, in its most perverted form, forum shopping is a symptom, not a problem. It’s a symptom of the problem that some jurisdictions are better than others.

That being said, the idea of perfect uniformity in the legal system is a delusion. If the world were are perfect as you think you are, there would be no need for patents, patent lawyers, inventors, business, or any other endeavor of man. However, when reality is taken into consideration (you might want to experiment with that practice), there is NO SUCH THING as perfect uniformity in the universe much less the court system. Even the most ordered systems are not perfectly uniform. Therefore it is natural and to be applauded for plaintiffs to seek the most favorable venue. Often times, favorability of a venue works to the advantage of all parties.

You sound more and more like a moron every time you comment on patent issues. Its especially entertaining to see you comment on the origins of the CAFC – which are well documented and not simply my opinion.

And I’m just a simple Pinhead.

Funny, we talk about stuff we know about all the time, and yet we’re repeatedly called ignorant by one person… you.

Yet when we actually point out where you’re wrong, you respond with “blah, blah, blah.”

So, tell us Rob, is that the defense you use in court when you’re shown to have made a factually incorrect argument?

You are right that there’s no perfect world, but to then use that as an excuse to say that the non-uniformity of the court system is just fine is ridiculous. The point is to call it out, and note that it is a problem and to discuss real solutions.

The second note to say that forum shopping is “a natural result of economic choices” is so laughable I don’t even know where to start. The courts are not a part of the marketplace. They’re a government institution, designed to promote justice fairly accross the land. Of course it’s not perfect — but to promote different court decisions as being a GOOD thing so that litigants can better choose where to sue is one of the most bizarre legal concepts around.

You do realize that the Supreme Court itself is around in large part to help PREVENT that sort of thing?

Now are you going to tell us we’re ignorant on what the Supreme Court does? Yes, because only lawyers like you could possibly understand… even though more and more lawyers seem to agree with us.

As far as I can see, no one is calling you ignorant regarding anything but patent/legal issues…

I say if a bunch of people are filing in a jurisdiction is must suggest that they know what the heck they are doing. Doesn’t sound like much of a problem to me. I say if a patentee feels like he has to travel to Marshall Texas for incrementally “better” justice, then that’s a choice that the patenee is free to make subject to the patentee’s ability to establish proper jurisdication.

The biggest arguments against the so-called “problem” of forum shopping are the travel and related per-diem costs of litigation for remote parties. A closer review reveals this too is probably more of a non-problem, especially with Marshall’s rocket docket.

What am I talking about? Sorry you don’t “get it.” What part of “duh” dont you understand? The “d” or the “uh”…?

Your final point, like your final point in the last one (I quote, following us showing you were 100% wrong: “blah, blah, blah”) is a situation where you don’t actual respond to us making a point, showing where you are wrong.

Rob, you are the one who seems to wait until we prove you wrong, and then make a silly comment. I thought we were having a discussion on the issues.