Brief of Amici Curiae 56 Professors of Law and Economics in Support of Petition for Writ of Certiorari in TC Heartland LLC V. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, No. 16-341
Brief of Amici Curiae 56 Professors of Law and Economics in Support of Petition for Writ of Certiorari in TC Heartland LLC V. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, No. 16-341

Author: Colleen V. Chien

Publisher:

Published: 2016

Total Pages: 24

ISBN-13:

DOWNLOAD EBOOK

28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) provides that a defendant in a patent case may be sued where the defendant is incorporated or has a regular and established place of business and has infringed the patent. This Court made clear in Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Prods. Corp., 353 U.S. 222, 223 (1957), that those were the only permissible venues for a patent case. But the Federal Circuit has rejected Fourco and the plain meaning of § 1400(b), instead permitting a patent plaintiff to file suit against a defendant anywhere there is personal jurisdiction over that defendant. The result has been rampant forum shopping, particularly by patent trolls. 44% of 2015 patent lawsuits were filed in a single district: the Eastern District of Texas, a forum with plaintiff-friendly rules and practices, and where few of the defendants are incorporated or have established places of business. And an estimated 86% of 2015 patent cases were filed somewhere other than the jurisdictions specified in the statute. Colleen V. Chien & Michael Risch, Recalibrating Patent Venue, Santa Clara Univ. Legal Studies Research Paper No. 10-1 (Sept. 1, 2016), Table 3. This Court should grant certiorari to review the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) because the Federal Circuit's dubious interpretation of the statute plays an outsized and detrimental role, both legally and economically, in the patent system.

Brief of 22 Law, Economics, and Business Professors As Amici Curiae in Support of Respondent in TC Heartland V. Kraft Foods
Brief of 22 Law, Economics, and Business Professors As Amici Curiae in Support of Respondent in TC Heartland V. Kraft Foods

Author: Ted M. Sichelman

Publisher:

Published: 2017

Total Pages: 0

ISBN-13:

DOWNLOAD EBOOK

TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods, currently pending at the U.S Supreme Court, concerns where patent owners can file suit against corporate defendants. This amicus brief considers and analyzes the policy issues at stake in this case. It concludes that the current venue rule, which allows patent owners to sue corporate defendants in any district in which personal jurisdiction lies, should be retained. First, rigorous empirical analysis shows that limiting venue in the manner proposed by the Petitioner in this case would not have any meaningful effect on the existing concentration of patent cases among the lower courts. Instead, it would primarily shift patent cases from one jurisdiction that is relatively favorable to patent owners to two jurisdictions that are relatively less favorable. Second, Congress has effectively rejected concerns over “forum shopping” and “forum selling” in adopting a statutory venue rule that corporate defendants in nearly every type of federal civil case may be sued anywhere personal jurisdiction lies. This rule is sensible, because corporate defendants should be subject to suit where they have committed substantial harmful acts. There is no reliable, systematic evidence to show that “forum shopping” or “forum selling” in patent law is exceptional when compared to other areas of law so as to justify a special venue rule. Third, even if patent suits were exceptional, only Congress is in a position to craft a rule that meaningfully distributes cases among the various district courts and that is equitable to patent owners and accused infringers alike.

Mark Janus, Petitioner, V. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, Et Al., Respondents
Mark Janus, Petitioner, V. American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, Council 31, Et Al., Respondents

Author:

Publisher:

Published: 2018

Total Pages: 50

ISBN-13:

DOWNLOAD EBOOK

"Petitioner's assertion that fair-share fees are unnecessary, and his assumption that employees seek to avoid paying fair-share fees because of commonly-held 'beliefs that they do not benefit from a union's advocacy' ... are incorrect and unfounded. In fact, 'rational, self-interested individuals' often 'will not act to achive their common or group interests,' even when they agree about these common interests and how to achieve them. This is not only well established in economic theory, it is also confirmed by empirical data--including the results of recent union-certification elections"--Leaves 9-10.