IP: A stake deep in the heart of the Texas patent troll
When historians write about the rise and fall of patent troll litigation, a chapter or two should be dedicated to the Eastern District of Texas. A preferred forum for plaintiffs, the district has been associatedfairly or unfairlyby liberal discovery and joinder rules, skepticism toward motions for transfer and summary judgment,...
October 18, 2011 at 02:00 AM
4 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Law.com
When historians write about the rise and fall of patent troll litigation, a chapter or two should be dedicated to the Eastern District of Texas. A preferred forum for plaintiffs, the district has been associated—fairly or unfairly—with liberal discovery and joinder rules, skepticism toward motions for transfer and summary judgment, and, until recently, a rocket docket that exacerbated the inherent asymmetries between trolls and real companies with respect to the burdens and costs of patent litigation.
So imagine how jaws must have dropped two weeks ago when Chief Judge Randall Rader of the Federal Circuit delivered his “State of Patent Litigation” address to the Eastern District of Texas Judicial Conference and cautioned that growing inefficiencies and asymmetries in patent litigation risk killing the goose that's been laying the golden eggs:
[I]f we cannot control the cost, complexity, and complications of patent litigation, the litigants that we serve will simply find a better way, or a better place, to resolve their disputes. Unchecked and uncontrolled inflation of litigation costs can potentially kill our golden goose and leave us empty handed…If the U.S. system requires a litigant to 'feed the goose' ten ounces of gold only to get a golden egg of five ounces in return, obviously geese from other counties that don't require such an investment, such as Germany or Japan or China, become more appealing. We must be careful not to drive away our golden goose by self-imposed encumbrances.
This may have been the very watershed moment for which the defense bar has long been waiting. Chief Judge Rader's comments centered on a number of excellent proposals for patent litigation reform. If adopted in particular cases, these proposals would do much to reduce the costs and burdens of patent litigation and, as a result, restore a fairer balance between plaintiffs and defendants.
Among the Chief Judge's proposals were the following:
- More summary judgments. Chief Judge Rader endorsed a more “aggressive summary judgment practice” and encouraged both the bench and bar to “present, if at all possible, a summary judgment motion, or maybe two, that can end litigation or narrow the case to dimensions more amendable to settlement.” In an age where summary judgments have become increasingly rare, Judge Rader's comments are enormously important and might be just the ticket for persuading judges to revisit this important defense weapon early in cases.
- E-discovery limitations. The discovery of e-mail should be deferred until after core discovery about the patent, the accused products and financial issues, and even then e-mail should be limited to five custodians and five search terms. As an example, Chief Judge Rader endorsed the new Model Order on E-Discovery in Patent Cases unanimously adopted by the Advisory Council of the Federal Circuit. These remarks, together with the model order, can be used as powerful authority for persuading judges to adopt a discovery order that strips trolls of one of their most important weapons: asymmetrical e-discovery costs.
- Fee shifting. Chief Judge Rader strongly encouraged the “full-scale reversal of attorney fees and costs” in cases of litigation abuse. Here's a remedy that has real teeth for a defendant and, if widely adopted, would dramatically affect the dynamics of troll litigation.
- Docket speed relief. One size does not fit all when it comes time to trial, a fact worth noting the next time you are in Alexandria, Va., for example. Chief Judge Rader agrees, encouraging courts to engage in early assessment of the value of a case so “the court may adjust timing and procedures … to make sure a billion-dollar case gets a 'billion dollars' worth' of process—adequate time, witnesses, confidential information protections and more—and a thousand-dollar case gets … well, less.”
Chief Judge's Rader's remarks occur at an important time in the struggle against patent troll litigation. It was appropriate that those remarks were delivered in Texas, where much of that struggle has played out over the last two decades. If his Honor's proposals become widely accepted—and the defense bar enjoys a powerful incentive to make that happen—it will be one big stake in the heart of the patent troll, coming fittingly from deep in the heart of Texas.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllLululemon Faces Legal Fire Over Its DEI Program After Bias Complaints Surface
3 minute readOld Laws, New Tricks: Lawyers Using Patchwork of Creative Legal Theories to Target New Tech
Lawsuit Against Amazon Could Reshape E-Commerce Landscape
Trending Stories
- 1NY Appellate Panel Cites Student's Disciplinary History While Sending Negligence Claim Against School District to Trial
- 2A Meta DIG and Its Nvidia Implications
- 3Deception or Coercion? California Supreme Court Grants Review in Jailhouse Confession Case
- 4State Bar of Georgia Presents Access to Justice Pro Bono Awards
- 5Tips For Creating Holiday Plans That Everyone Can Be Grateful For
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250