New Bill Designed To Stop Egregious Venue Shopping By Patent Trolls

from the sorry-east-texas dept

Abusive patent litigation siphons tens of billions of dollars from the economy every year. In addition to burdening American entrepreneurs with lost revenues and great uncertainty, the scourge of frivolous lawsuits depletes funds that otherwise could have used toward research and development, venture-capital investment and other essential business activities.

While it isn’t the kind of comprehensive corrective to America’s “patent troll” problem that we’d like to see, the newly introduced Venue Equity and Non-Uniformity Elimination Act would address one small piece of the problem. The bill, S. 2733, would curtail rampant venue shopping that unfairly distorts legal outcomes by allowing plaintiffs to select friendly judges in advance.

According to research from George Mason University’s Mercatus Center, nearly half of all patent cases are filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Through the first half of 2015, the Tyler, Texas-based court heard 1,387 patent cases, compared with an average of 19 such cases in other federal judicial districts.

The district has become so notorious as a magnet for “patent troll” litigation that Samsung ramped up its giving to charities near the court, and even built an ice skating rink next to the court’s Marshall, Texas division, undoubtedly to present a more friendly face to local juries. The City of Tyler even advertises itself as “IP friendly” and lists the big awards the court has doled out. The current state of affairs is so absurd that John Oliver even covered it.

When the Federal Circuit heard oral arguments this month in TC Heartland, a case that deals with venue, it blamed Congress for the current mess. As the panel explained, the present situation arose from a 1990 case called VE Holding that overrode the previous, stricter, rules following an interpretation of a 1988 law. Therefore, since Congress messed it up in the first place, they should be the ones that fix it.

Yet, cracking down on venue shopping alone offers a more modest goal than the sorts of comprehensive patent-reform legislation that have stalled in Congress in recent years. The last major push for comprehensive reform ? H.R. 3309, the Innovation Act of 2013 ? passed the U.S. House in December of that year with broad bipartisan support and an overwhelming margin of 325-91. At the time, it held a 7-1 margin of support among Republicans.

Alas, the bill also drew host of special interests to the table, who swiftly ramped up an intense and well-funded opposition campaign (get your fill of AstroTurf at After failing to clear the Senate during the 113th Congress, the Innovation Act was reintroduced last year by House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte, as H.R. 9. Both that measure and a Senate companion bill (S. 1137, the PATENT Act) included venue-reform provisions. Despite strong support from free-market groups (including R Street) and a wide variety of other organizations, a coalition of special interests has obstructed either bill from moving forward.

The holistic approach to patent litigation reform appears to have been swallowed up by fear-mongering. Opponents have gone so far as to claim that an effort pushed by some of the most conservative legislators actually represented Obama’s liberal vision for a “patent-free society.” Narrowly-targeted reform efforts like the one introduced by Sens. Jeff Flake, Cory Gardner, and Mike Lee (none of whom are even remotely considered to be on the “liberal” end of the spectrum), present a new opportunity to move forward.

The fruits of innovation should go to entrepreneurs and inventors, not trial lawyers. Addressing abusive patent litigation is essential to ensure that America’s rules to reward technological innovation remain in line with the Constitution’s mandate to “Promote the Progress of Science and the useful Arts.”

Nathan Leamer and Zach Graves are from R Street, a free market-based, think tank in Washington DC

Filed Under: , , , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “New Bill Designed To Stop Egregious Venue Shopping By Patent Trolls”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
ThatDevilTech (profile) says:

Hey Techdirt.....

Come on…EVERY time this comes up, and the EDTX is mentioned, you have to mention that Samsung “built” the ice skating rink. That rink was there BEFORE Samsung came in and sponsored it, or donated any money. Quit posting that false information, or do a bit of fact-checking please.

Granted, the earliest I can find is 2009, a YouTube video has the Samsung sponsors on the rink boards, BUT the Wonderland of Lights has been going for at least 27 years in Marshall (when the ice rink operates from Thanksgiving to about New Years).

I’ll be glad when they put the venue shopping to an end too, but quit mentioning something that has been there before Samsung came to town.

nasch (profile) says:

Re: Hey Techdirt.....

Hm, Mike replied to the PIAA guy who posted after you, but not to this. Mike, you don’t want us to think you’re ignoring this so you can continue to write about something that isn’t true, do you? I don’t want to think that but you’ve been called out for it at least twice now. If you have references indicating the ice rink was constructed by Samsung I would be interested to see them.

staff (user link) says:

lies and more lies

Don’t believe the lies of thieves and their Chinese style propaganda. Just because they call it ‘reform’ doesn’t mean it is.

For our position and the changes we advocate to truly reform the patent system, or to join our effort, please visit us at…/our…/
or, contact us at

Whatever (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:

Well, near as I can figure out, the insurance industry (which may be on the hook to pay off some settlements) would likely prefer if THEY could force the venues to be places they like, rather then being where the patent holder’s offices are. Moving the cases to places which are more friendly to insurance companies or that are more willing to accept endless motions to delay, slow down, and otherwise put cases on hold would certainly be in their interest. The “think tank” or whatever it is is stacked with insurance industry people (can you say Astroturf?).

So yeah, it’s one of those good questions: Why is the insurance industry’s group so interested in the subject?

Whatever (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re:

The problem is if it’s their legal office (ie, company address, where they can be served, etc) then it should be good enough for the courts. Creating a different standard (say, where the CEO of the company actually lives) would create other problems. There are plenty of companies incorporated and “legally” based in certain states, but none of the employees are there. Yet, they can be served at the address, which is good enough for the courts.

Would it be fair to punish corporations over individuals?

That One Guy (profile) says:

If you don't want it done to you...

I imagine there would be many a fit thrown if there was a venue where it was well known that the overwhelming majority of copyright and patent infringement cases heard there resulted in a ‘Not guilty’ verdict for the defendant, and people accused of such from all over the country filed to have their cases heard there, no matter where they lived or where the one filing the lawsuit was based. After all if they don’t live there, and the person suing them doesn’t live there, then it should be pretty obvious that the case has no business being heard there.

The idea that restrictions on venue shifting such that patent infringement cases are heard either in the area of the accused, or the area of the accuser is somehow ‘anti-inventory’ is beyond ridiculous, and is little more than parasites throwing a fit because their favorite weapon, a ludicrously biased court might be taken away from them, meaning they might actually have to double-check that they have a case before sending out the shakedown letters.

Another Internet Bigmouth (profile) says:

Mercatus, sure, why not

On the theory that a blind squirrel finds a nut every now and then, sure, I’ll accept the research you cite from the Mercatus thinktank. I even agree with it, and a large part of my living is tied up in dealing with such litigation. But bear in mind the same source you cite also supports a lot of the incumbent-favoring deregulation or skewed regulation that results in things like non-competitive and therefore crappy broadband access, and so forth. Note further that Mercatus is a Koch-brothers funded think tank AT George Mason U., and is not an organ of that public university.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...