Podcasts about tc heartland

Show Notes Is it preferable for patent cases to be handled by district court judges who have relevant expertise and experience? Senator Leahy can't make up his mind.  Leahy's eponymous Leahy-Smith American Invents Act created the Patent Pilot Program.  The program allowed federal district court judges in select districts to volunteer to handle patent cases. The goal was for certain judges to have increased expertise – and as a result – do a better job. However, after the program expired and Judge Alan Albright started attracting patent cases to his Waco court room in the Western District of Texas, Leahy had a change of heart.  In an unprecedented letter to Supreme Court Justice Roberts, Leahy pressured Roberts to do what he can to stop Waco from being a go-to patent venue by suggesting there was something untoward about Albright's interest in patent cases. The pressure campaign seems to have worked.  In his end-of-year report, Roberts highlighted the issue and stressed “the role of district judges as generalists.” Eli decided to talk to an expert on the subject of patent venues - Prof. Timothy Hsieh – about this recent controversy. Eli also talks to Prof. Hsieh about whether how courts think about venue is outdated and his fascinating career trajectory of patent litigator turned patent examiner turned law school professor. Clause 8 is part of IPWatchdog and sponsored by Harrity– the go-to firm for the Patent 300 for patent preparation & prosecution. Episode Highlights  [00:09] Getting to know the IP Expert: the unlikely trajectory of a patent litigator turned patent examiner turned law professor at the University of Oklahoma City. [07:09] From clerk to patent examiner: Hsieh talks about his federal clerkship experience before becoming an examiner at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Offices (USPTO) to work as an examiner. [12:10] Pit of despair: Hsieh talks about his experience as an examiner in the USPTO's business method Technology Center.   [17:11] Advice for patent applicants: Hsieh offers some pointers from an examiner's perspective for what applicants can do to succeed at the USPTO.  [20:57] TC Heartland: Hsieh talks about his the impact of TC Heartland vs. Kraft Foods, including how it's impacting district courts in Delaware and Northern California.  [31:54] Outdated concepts: Is federal venue jurisprudence outdated? [36:37] Experts vs. generalists: In a 2021 paper, law scholar Paul Gugliozza stresses that the TC Heartland case may have ended the practice of forum shopping and replaced it with judge shopping. Is that a bad thing?  [41:14] An unprecedented writ: Writs of mandamus are only supposed to be used in the most extreme or rare circumstances. Hsieh explains why they are being used more than ever to order reversals of venue changes.  [46:07] An ongoing problem?: TC Heartland sought to address the high concentration of patents being filed in East Texas, but now a majority of cases are moving to two states: Delaware and California. Is this an improvement? [55:03] Keep the spark alive: Academia is one of the most competitive career sectors. Hsieh gives advice to those who want to replicate his career path.

On May 22, 2017, in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Food Group Brands LLC, the Supreme Court overturned a 30 year old Federal Circuit precedent on venue in patent cases, holding that a patent defendant can be sued only in a federal district court in its state of incorporation (its “residence” under 1400(b)) or in a district in which it both committed an act of infringement and has a regular and established place of business. Federal courts last adjudicated the meaning of “regular and established place of business” and the location of commission of an act of infringement almost three decades ago, long before the rise of the modern e-commerce economy and before Congress added offers to sell to the litany of acts that infringe a patent. What have district courts and the federal circuit made of these statutory elements in the past five months, and what questions will courts face in determining the proper venue for patent suits? Joel Ard, a partner at Foster Pepper in Seattle, and Michael Friedland, a partner at Knobbe Martens in Orange County, will give an overview of recent developments in patent venue and offer some predictions of unresolved issues and possible resolutions of them.Featuring:Mr. Joel B. Ard, Foster PepperMr. Michael Friedland, Partner, Knobbe Martens

On May 22, 2017, in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Food Group Brands LLC, the Supreme Court overturned a 30 year old Federal Circuit precedent on venue in patent cases, holding that a patent defendant can be sued only in a federal district court in its state of incorporation (its “residence” under 1400(b)) or in a district in which it both committed an act of infringement and has a regular and established place of business. Federal courts last adjudicated the meaning of “regular and established place of business” and the location of commission of an act of infringement almost three decades ago, long before the rise of the modern e-commerce economy and before Congress added offers to sell to the litany of acts that infringe a patent. What have district courts and the federal circuit made of these statutory elements in the past five months, and what questions will courts face in determining the proper venue for patent suits? Joel Ard, a partner at Foster Pepper in Seattle, and Michael Friedland, a partner at Knobbe Martens in Orange County, will give an overview of recent developments in patent venue and offer some predictions of unresolved issues and possible resolutions of them.Featuring:Mr. Joel B. Ard, Foster PepperMr. Michael Friedland, Partner, Knobbe Martens

IP Frequently – where, while always fair, nothing is off limits. We invite you to join the conversation

Sue Decker, a patent reporter for Bloomberg News, discusses the Supreme Court case TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods Group Brands, which decided that companies must bring patent cases in the states where the companies are based, rather than choosing a favorable court in another part of the country. He speaks with Greg Stohr on Bloomberg Radio's "Bloomberg Law."

Sue Decker, a patent reporter for Bloomberg News, discusses the Supreme Court case TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods Group Brands, which decided that companies must bring patent cases in the states where the companies are based, rather than choosing a favorable court in another part of the country. He speaks with Greg Stohr on Bloomberg Radio's "Bloomberg Law." Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

(Bloomberg) -- Sue Decker, a patent reporter for Bloomberg News, discusses the Supreme Court case TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods Group Brands, which decided that companies must bring patent cases in the states where the companies are based, rather than choosing a favorable court in another part of the country. He speaks with Greg Stohr on Bloomberg Radio's "Bloomberg Law."

  IP Frequently – where, while always fair, nothing is off limits. We invite you to join the conversation.

(Bloomberg) -- Sue Decker, a patent reporter for Bloomberg News, discusses the Supreme Court case TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods Group Brands, which decided that companies must bring patent cases in the states where the companies are based, rather than choosing a favorable court in another part of the country. He speaks with Greg Stohr on Bloomberg Radio's "Bloomberg Law." Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

The question presented in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC is seemingly straightforward: Does the statute governing venue generally, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c), supplement the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b)? In particular, the issue is whether § 1391(c)(2)’s broad residency definition, which provides that a corporate defendant “shall be deemed to reside . . . in any judicial district in which such defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction,” should be read into § 1400(b), which provides that a patent infringement action “may be brought in the judicial district where the defendant resides.” If a corporate defendant “resides” wherever a court has personal jurisdiction over it, a patent owner will typically have many choices of where it may sue that corporation for infringement. -- TC Heartland is incorporated and headquartered in Indiana, while Kraft Foods is incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in Illinois. Kraft Foods sued in the District of Delaware, arguing that TC Heartland established personal jurisdiction—and thus venue—when it knowingly shipped a large number of allegedly infringing goods into that forum. The Federal Circuit held that the patent venue statute is supplemented by the broad definition of residency in § 1391(c). TC Heartland now asks the Supreme Court to reverse the decision and to hold that § 1400(b) is the sole and exclusive statute governing venue in patent infringement actions. -- The case itself has garnered much attention because the same broad venue rules also allow non-practicing entities—so-called “patent trolls”—to sue in the Eastern District of Texas. Indeed, the policy implications of the case have taken center stage among many commentators. -- The issue of where patent owners may sue alleged infringers is an important one, and this case will determine whether patent owners, like federal plaintiffs generally, have numerous choices, or whether they are limited by the narrow patent venue rules that the Supreme Court has already said should stand alone. -- Featuring: Prof. J. Devlin Hartline, Assistant Director, Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property (CPIP) and Adjunct Professor, Antonin Scalia Law School, George Mason University.

TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC | 03/27/17 | Docket #: 16-341