Affiliate Disclosure
If you buy through our links, we may get a commission. Read our ethics policy.

US Supreme Court ruling may shrink tide of frivolous patent lawsuits against Apple [u]

Last updated

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday issued a critical decision that could reduce the number of patent lawsuits tech companies like Apple face on a yearly basis. [Updated with correction on case limits]

In an 8-0 ruling, the court sided with drink flavoring company TC Heartland against Kraft Heinz, arguing that patent infringement suits can only be filed in the jurisdiction where the target company is incorporated or where "the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business." The ruling overturns a 2016 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which said that lawsuits should be possible anywhere a defendant's products are on the market.

So-called patent trolls — holding firms that don't sell a tangible product — will often file lawsuits against businesses like Apple through a single federal district in east Texas known to favorable to plaintiffs in patent cases. This is despite many of the defendants being based in California, and many of the plaintiffs having little to no presence in the Eastern District.

Even bigger plaintiffs will sometimes choose the Eastern District, an example being Nokia, which is still engaged in a global legal battle with Apple.

Over 40 percent of all patent suits reportedly pass through the Eastern District, 90 percent of that number originating from patent trolls.

The Supreme Court ruling is unlikely to affect the likes of Nokia, but may deter smaller patent holders with frivolous claims. A risk is that federal courts in California could become clogged with patent cases, slowing down an already strained system.



26 Comments

randominternetperson 8 Years · 3101 comments

AppleInsider said:

The Supreme Court ruling is unlikely to affect the likes of Nokia, but may deter smaller patent holders with frivolous claims. A risk is that federal courts in California could become clogged with patent cases, slowing down an already strained system.

I don't see how you reached this conclusion (that it's unlikely to affect "the likes of Nokia").  The ruling isn't about "trolls' versus non-trolls.  The plaintiff in this case (Kraft Heinz) is decidedly not a patent troll.  This seems like a very straightforward (and major) ruling that if you want to sue Apple, for example, sue them in California where they are incorporated rather some cherry picked jurisdiction where they happen to do business.

carnegie 10 Years · 1082 comments

AppleInsider said:

...

In an 8-0 ruling, the court sided with drink flavoring company TC Heartland against Kraft Heinz, arguing that patent infringement suits can only be filed in the jursidiction where the target company is incorporated, according to Reuters. The ruling overturns a 2016 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which said that lawsuits should be possible anywhere a defendant's products are on the market.

...

This decision does not mean that patent infringement actions can only be brought where the target company is incorporated. It means that when the defendant is a corporation the residence prong of 28 USC §1400(b) only refers to where a company is incorporated. 28 USC §1400(b) also allows patent infringement actions to be brought "where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business."

So such actions can be brought either 
where a company is incorporated or where it has a regular and established place of business and has committed acts of infringement.

mystigo 16 Years · 183 comments

What are those troglodytes in East Texas gonna do now? They can only hear law suits on dirt sifting and meth labs now. Yee haw!

randominternetperson 8 Years · 3101 comments

carnegie said:
This decision does not mean that patent infringement actions can only be brought where the target company is incorporated. It means that when the defendant is a corporation the residence prong of 28 USC §1400(b) only refers to where a company is incorporated. 28 USC §1400(b) also allows patent infringement actions to be brought "where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business."

So such actions can be brought either 
where a company is incorporated or where it has a regular and established place of business and has committed acts of infringement.

Thanks for the clarification.  The defendant in this case is some dinky firm without a national presence, but that's not going to help Apple.  Bummer.

doozydozen 11 Years · 539 comments

Hopefully now Marshall Texas will be wiped off the map. I don't sincerely mean that, but what a strange place full of stranger law "professionals." Happy to hear their local industry of corruption is now dead. Thanks SC