Raytheon Company v. Cray, Inc., E.D. Tex. (June 29, 2017) (Judge Rodney Gilstrap)
On June 29, 2017, Judge Gilstrap of the Eastern District of Texas issued an opinion analyzing the factors to consider when determining whether, in the absence of “residence” in the district, a defendant “has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business” there for purposes of satisfying the venue statute. This is an issue that the Federal Circuit has not touched since 1985, leaving litigants and courts to review numerous, not always consistent, regional court decisions.
This particular patent case concerns technologies allegedly incorporated into a Cray XC40 supercomputer installed at the University of Texas Austin’s campus (which is not in the Eastern District of Texas). While this case has been pending since 2015, Cray had timely filed a motion to dismiss for improper venue early in the action. READ MORE
We previously reported on the early impact of the Supreme Court’s decision in TC Heartland based on the first few weeks of new filings. (For a summary of the TC Heartland opinion and its implications, click here.) It has now been one month, and based on the filing data for the month since TC Heartland as well as historical data since the beginning of 2016, we now have a better sense of how things have changed and how things may look in the future. Using data obtained from Docket Navigator, we compared filings in the month since TC Heartland came down on May 22 with filings earlier this year and also for all of 2016. READ MORE
It’s been just over two weeks since the Supreme Court decision in TC Heartland. (For a summary of the opinion and its implications, click here.) As plaintiffs and the courts now struggle to deal with venue in patent cases (and patent litigators brush up on venue law), we looked at recent filings to see what effect the decision had on where patent complaints are being filed. Using data obtained from Docket Navigator, we compared filings in the sixteen days since TC Heartland came down on May 22 with filings earlier this year between March 1-May 21. READ MORE
Motion to Stay Pending Inter Partes Review Granted, Personal Web Techs. LLC et al. v. Google Inc. et al., 5:13-cv-01317 (Judge Edward Davila)
When third parties file petitions for inter partes review that cover some, but not all, of the Plaintiff’s asserted claims, should the court still stay the district court litigation? In at least one recent case brought by PersonalWeb Technologies against Google and YouTube, the answer was “yes,” so long as the Defendants agreed to be bound by the same estoppel conditions as would bind the
Many technology companies here in Silicon Valley find themselves in the Eastern District of Texas – either as a plaintiff drawn to the district’s reputation as a plaintiff’s forum or as a less-willing defendant. Motions to transfer are often the first motions filed in such cases since these companies often maintain the bulk of their operations outside of the Eastern District. The Federal Circuit just issued a case on April 3, 2014, that sheds a little more light the Fifth Circuit’s test (which would be applied by Texas courts, amongst the other district courts in the Fifth Circuit) for determining whether a case should be transferred from the district in which it was filed to another. In re Toyota Motor Corporation, et al., Appeal No. 2014-113. This decision should facilitate transfer out of the Eastern District. READ MORE