Freedom Line Blog

CFIF strongly favors comprehensive patent litigation reform, in particular the Innovation Act that passed by a bipartisan 325-91 House vote in the last Congress.  Venue reform constitutes one important part of that broader effort, which CFIF has also emphasized.

By way of review, current federal rules allow patent lawsuits to be filed almost anywhere, which in turn allows plaintiffs to file in districts where no defendant resides, where no substantial portion of the events in dispute occurred and where few if any relevant witnesses and evidence are situated.

As we have noted, one manifestation that of venue abuse problem is the preposterous overabundance of patent lawsuits in a single federal district – the Eastern District of Texas:

Since 2009  alone the total number of patent lawsuits in the United States has more than doubled from 2,500 to over 6,000 in 2014.  And of that total, a preposterous 44% of new patent lawsuits last year were filed in a single federal court district, the Eastern District of Texas.  Even more preposterously, one judge in that district – Rodney Gilstrap – oversees 900 cases and actually accounts for almost one-fifth of all patent lawsuits in the entire U.S.

Plaintiffs’ attorneys game the system by suing in the Eastern District of Texas for a variety of reasons, including its reluctance to allow transfer of cases to more appropriate districts, its prevalence of high ‘jackpot jury’ awards, its willingness to allow excessive document and witness discovery demands, its friendly verdict rate and its local court rules favorable to plaintiffs.  The district is so notoriously welcoming that plaintiffs create artificial connections such as bogus offices and document warehouses for the sole reason of convincing judges to keep cases there.”

Fortunately, Senators Mike Lee (R – Utah), Cory Gardner (R – Colorado) and Jeff Flake (R – Arizona) have introduced legislation to surgically pursue venue reform.

Their Venue Equity and Non-Uniformity Elimination Act (VENUE Act) of 2016 (S. 2733) would limit litigants’ ability to game the system and play “jackpot justice” when choosing the district in which to sue.  Stated simply, the VENUE Act would now require plaintiffs to sue in districts more appropriate for the case in question and convenient for the parties and witnesses.  No longer would plaintiffs possess almost unlimited ability to drive opposing parties to nuisance settlements by filing in faraway districts untethered to the parties or legal issues.  Instead, patent lawsuits would be litigated in districts where defendants’ principle places of business are located, where the patent holders and important witnesses reside, where the evidence is more centralized or where the more substantial portion of alleged infringements occurred.

It should be noted that the VENUE Act would still allow parties to voluntarily agree amongst themselves to a particular district, so this wouldn’t constitute a one-size-fits-all mandate.

Although comprehensive patent litigation reform remains the goal, the VENUE Act advances the ball on this issue in an important manner.  We therefore encourage our supporters and activists across the country to contact their Senators and express support for this important patent litigation venue reform bill.

In the accelerating debate over patent litigation reform legislation, opponents continue to mischaracterize it as “patent reform,” as if the bill would somehow reorder the system by which patents are granted, the duration of protection and so on.

Whether deliberate or simply careless, that’s simply untrue.

Patent litigation reform legislation, including the Innovation Act that we at CFIF most strongly favor, would reform how patents are litigated, not our patent system itself.  And as Dana Rao, Vice President and Associate General Counsel of Intellectual Property and Litigation at Adobe Systems, details in The Hill, patent litigation abuse remains a serious problem:

The numbers are in.  And they aren’t good.  Patent trolls filed 3,604 suits in 2015, making it the second busiest year on record for abusive patent litigation.  And if anyone had any doubt about the merit of those suits, the busiest filing day last year, by far, came one day before a court rule permitting vague complaints was set to expire.  A record 212 patent infringement lawsuits were filed on November 30.  That is nearly 18 times as many as a normal day.  What kind of patent holder would scramble to file a suit to take advantage of this rule?  A patent holder who knew their suit had no merit.  These recent numbers reveal that court decisions and rule changes do not discourage abuse of our patent system.  In the current system, trolls continue to bring frivolous suits in sympathetic courtrooms around the country.  Only legislation will change these dynamics.”

The Innovation Act addresses that critical need for reform.

The Innovation Act targets patent litigation abuse by:  (1)  Forcing frivolous litigants who can’t demonstrate to the court that their “position and conduct … were reasonably justified in law and fact, or that special circumstances (such as severe economic hardship to a named inventor) make an award unjust”;  (2)  Changing pleading standards so that parties must state their allegations with greater clarity and specificity, instead of relying upon vague and summary allegations that offer little insight into the nature of their claims;  (3)  Reforming the pretrial discovery process (witness depositions, document requests, etc.) in order to reduce the oppressive burdens currently imposed on parties, often as a tactic to drive innocent parties to settle rather than vindicate their rights;  and (4)  Bringing greater transparency regarding true ownership of disputed patents.

Notice what the Innovation Act does not do:  overhaul the patent system itself.  Which is one reason why the bill passed by an overwhelming and bipartisan 325-91 vote in the last Congress.

So why do opponents continue to mischaracterize it as “patent reform?”  Only they possess the certainty of their own minds to explain, but one suspects that it’s a ploy to frighten those of us who support strong intellectual property (IP) protections.  But CFIF takes a backseat to no one in advocating strong IP protections, and we would not support any bill that threatened to undermine them.

Whatever their motivations or confusion, however, it’s important that elected officials, policy analysts and everyday Americans remain clear that patent litigation reform should not be confused with “patent reform.”

As we enter 2016 and the presidential race accelerates, it can be tempting and even entertaining for conservatives and libertarians to find themselves divided on an array of issues, from foreign policy to immigration reform to how to improve our tax code.  Respectful debate and disagreement on such matters is both healthy and necessary.

On another issue, however, there should be little disagreement:  the desperate need for litigation reform in America.  That includes patent litigation reform, particularly in light of the fact that , as Wall Street Journal legal reporter Ashby Jones reports, 2015 just witnessed a 25% increase in patent suits in a single year:

Patent litigation brought by so-called ‘non-practicing entities’ continued to flourish in 2015, according to a new study, despite repeated attempts to curtail it.  According to the report, released Monday by RPX Corp., NPEs filed over 3,600 patent cases in 2015.  NPEs, also referred to derisively as ‘patent trolls,’ buy up patents and seek to make money from them through licensing and litigation.  NPEs filed 3,604 cases last year, a sharp increase over 2014, in which NPEs filed 2,891.

Fortunately, a large and bipartisan majority in Congress has recognized the need for patent litigation reform, which CFIF has strongly and consistently supported:

To address those widespread problems in our current patent litigation system, while also protecting legitimate patent claimants, Congressman Robert Goodlatte (R – Virginia) has reintroduced the Innovation Act.   Identical legislation passed the House approximately one year ago by a lopsided 325 to 91 vote, and nothing has changed since that date to justify a reversal.

The bill narrowly targets patent litigation abuses, primarily by introducing several key reforms to the patent litigation process.  Those reforms include:  (1) Greater ability to shift costs and fees to improper litigants than the current system provides;  (2) Heightened pleading standards that require greater clarity and justification for the lawsuit itself;  (3) Greater transparency regarding true owners of disputed patents;  and (4) Much-needed streamlining of the discovery process during litigation, which often imposes oppressive burdens in time and resources upon respondents.

Unfortunately, some opponents of reform have resorted to claiming that patent litigation reform would somehow undermine patent rights or intellectual property rights more broadly.  That is simply not the case, as we have explained exhaustively.  We at CFIF stand among the strongest proponents of IP protections, and we would not support any cause that undermined them.  The reality is that the bills we support target patent litigation abuse, not substantive patent rights themselves.  The Innovation Act, for instance, simply requires that losing parties in a patent lawsuit demonstrate “that the position and conduct of the nonprevailing party or parties were reasonably justified in law and fact or that special circumstances (such as severe economic hardship to a named inventor) make an award unjust.”

That is not a difficult hurdle to clear.

Accordingly, opponents of patent litigation reform must answer why requiring parties who resort to costly and protracted litigation to show that their claim is “reasonably justified in law and fact” is somehow unfair or excessively burdensome.   They cannot, and there is simply no reason for further delay in achieving patent litigation reform legislation in 2016.