This page permanently redirects to gemini://gemini.techrights.org/2016/04/30/cafc-supports-patent-trolls/.

● 04.30.16

●● Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) Has Just Sided With Patent Trolls

Posted in America, Patents at 4:38 am by Dr. Roy Schestowitz

Another good reason to shut down CAFC once and for all

Summary: The notorious CAFC, which manifested software patents in the United States, has just given a gift to patent trolls that typically use software patents for extortion down in Texas

EARLIER this month and also last month we wrote about an effort to restrict patent trolls from taking their cases (or dragging defendants/victims) to ‘friendly’ courts, notably courts in the Eastern District of Texas where the majority of patent cases are now being filed. Well, sadly enough, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) has just sided with the trolls (inaction is taking a side in this case), just as it sided with software patents proponents several decades ago, opening the floodgates to almost a million more (patent trolls typically uses these).

=> this month | also | last month | where the majority of patent cases are now being filed | ↺ the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC)

“This will hopefully be escalated to the Supreme Court…”Professor Mark Lemley wrote that the “Federal Circuit won’t restrict forum shopping in patent cases. Next stops — the Supreme Court and Congress. http://src.bna.com/exf” (EFF is named in the cited PDF). Here is the statement issued by the EFF only hours ago:

=> ↺ wrote | ↺ statement issued by the EFF only hours ago

In a disappointing but unsurprising ruling, the Federal Circuit confirmed today that patent owners essentially have free rein to file suit in any tiny corner of the country, regardless of its minimal connection to the patent owner, the alleged infringer, or the technology involved.The case is In re TC Heartland. The alleged infringer, TC Heartland, was sued by Kraft in Delaware. TC Heartland asked the Federal Circuit, through a petition for writ of mandamus, to find that the case couldn’t be heard there, according to laws regarding “venue.”

Lemley cited the decision early on (the first we found on the topic), but Professor Dennis Crouch also adds some personal comments, stating: “In its petition for writ of mandamus, TC Heartland raised a set of interesting venue and personal jurisdiction claims – basically arguing that both the statute and Supreme Court precedent strongly limit where patent claims can be brought.”

=> ↺ Professor Dennis Crouch also adds some personal comments

This will hopefully be escalated to the Supreme Court, which unlike the CAFC isn’t quite so biased and even corrupt (we covered this many times before). █

=> ↺ the Supreme Court | we covered this many times before

Share in other sites/networks: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.

Permalink  Send this to a friend

=> Permalink | ↺ Send this to a friend

=> Techrights

➮ Sharing is caring. Content is available under CC-BY-SA.