according to More than 40 percent of all patent lawsuits are filed in East Texas.
TC Heartland is challenging a lower court ruling denying a transfer to Indiana.
The justices could curtail where patent lawsuits may be launched, limiting them to where a defendant company is incorporated and potentially making it harder to get to trial or score lucrative jury verdicts.
Of those, 90 percent are brought by “patent trolls,” according to a study published in a Stanford Law School journal.
Dabney said the high court previously ruled in 1957 that patent cases are governed by a specific law allowing suits where defendants are incorporated.
according to To continue reading,become a free ALM digital reader.
Yet, they sound reluctant to overrule a 1990 decision that led to a crush of filings in the Eastern District of Texas.
Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
The justices have shown no great deference to the Federal Circuit in recent years.
Sign In *May exclude premium content
A 2014 Supreme Court case may be causing a decline in successful digital health patents
Partner Antonia Sequeira and Patent Agent Johnathan Chai looked at a sample of 100 digital health patents issued since 2012.
Two experts at Fenwick & West LLP, writing for the patent law blog IP Watchdog, believe that Alice has led to the rejection of many digital health patent applications as well.
Two of the biggest digital health patent cases in recent years — Jawbone versus Fitbit and Teladoc vs American Well — were ultimately decided based on the precedent set by a 2014 Supreme Court case called Alice v CLS Bank.
But Sequeira and Chai argue that in digital health, in a post-Alice world, a narrow scope, with specific technical language, is a better bet.
The authors’ best practical advice is to be specific and technical in a patent application.
collected by :Sofia Iden
visit us automotive