s

Tag Archives: patent infringement

Patent Infringement Lawsuit Transferred away from Eastern District of Texas

Recently, a patent infringement lawsuit filed in the Eastern District of Texas was transferred to the Northern District of Texas.[1] While this news may seem hardly ground-breaking, this may signal that courts are becoming more willing to transfer patent infringement cases away from the Eastern District of Texas. A previous blog article illuminated the current dispute in patent law regarding the proper venue in which infringement lawsuits can be filed. The Supreme Court is currently hearing the case of TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Food Brands Group LLC, which is likely to decide the proper interpretation of the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). The underlying debate focuses on complaints that patent infringement Plaintiffs engage in “forum shopping” by overwhelmingly choosing to file lawsuits in the Eastern District of Texas, which has long been considered a patent Plaintiff friendly court. The Supreme Court heard oral argument for this case on March 27, 2017.[2] Thus, a ruling is expected within the next several months.

Although the Eastern District of Texas in Securityprofiling, LLC did not mention the TC Heartland LLC case, this case was transferred to the Northern District of Texas despite the fact that there was a total of two pending cases between the parties in the Eastern District of Texas and that Plaintiff’s principal place of business is currently located within the Eastern District of Texas.[3] The ruling in Securityprofiling, LLC begs the question of whether more courts will be willing to transfer cases from the Eastern District of Texas while a ruling from the Supreme Court in TC Heartland LLC remains pending. Our firm will be monitoring the status of the Supreme Court’s ruling in TC Heartland LLC and its potential impact. Please contact our office if you have any questions regarding the information in this article.

Daniel Devine, Esq.
Santucci Priore, P.L.
Partner

[1] See, Securityprofiling, LLC v. Trend Micro America, Inc. et. al., No. 16-CV-1165-RWS-JDL at Docket Entry No. 62 (E.D. Tex. May 12, 2017).
[2] http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/tc-heartland-llc-v-kraft-foods-group-brands-llc/
[3] See, Securityprofiling, LLC, No. No. 16-CV-1165-RWS-JDL at Docket Entry No. 62.

Patent infringement lawsuit brought against Uber by competitor

Recently, a patent infringement lawsuit was brought against Uber Technologies, Inc. (“Uber”) by a competing ride-sharing company named Hailo Technologies, LLC d/b/a Bring (“Plaintiff”).[1] The Plaintiff describes itself as a company that develops software intended to service ride-hailing customers interested in bringing their biking equipment when traveling.[2] The Plaintiff alleges that it owns a patent registration for a computer based method/system of calling and dispatching drivers, which enables a user to select a particular Taxi or vehicular transport company from a menu, along with the desired destination and number of passengers traveling.[3] The Plaintiff’s patent was issued as U.S. Patent No. 5,973,619 in October 1999.[4]

The Plaintiff alleges that Uber’s mobile application infringes upon its patented invention.[5] Infringement is determined by looking at the claims of the patent and performing a direct comparison between each element and the accused device. Thus, a comparison will need to be made between elements stated in the claims of the Plaintiff’s patent and elements of Uber’s mobile application. Often, the court must step in and settle disputes over the definition of claim terms prior to the claim being compared to the accused device. Usually this is done in what is called a Markham hearing in which both parties submit their proposed interpretation of the scope of the claim or claims in the subject patent. The court will then rule on how several terms in the subject patent are defined. Next, the jury or the court will determine whether infringement has occurred.

This case is currently in its early stages and we will be monitoring the status of this case. Please contact our office if you have any questions regarding the information in this article.

Daniel Devine, Esq.
Santucci Priore, P.L.
Partner

[1] See, Hailo Tech., LLC d/b/a Bring v. Uber Tech., Inc., No. 17-cv-03028 at Docket Entry No. 10 (C.D. Cal. April 24, 2017).
[2] Id.
[3] Id.
[4] Id.
[5] Id.

Supreme Court agrees to hear case that may put limits on where Patent cases can be filed

Recently, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case which may place restrictions on where patent litigation lawsuits may be filed.[1] The Supreme Court granted a petition for certiorari filed by TC Heartland LLC (“Petitioner”).[2] The petition resulted from a lawsuit in which the Petitioner was sued for patent infringement by a subsidiary of food company Kraft (“Respondent”).[3] The lawsuit was filed by Respondent in Delaware federal court.[4] The Petitioner argued that the lawsuit should have been brought in Indiana, but this argument was rejected by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on appeal.[5]

The petition asks the Supreme Court to determine the proper interpretation of the patent venue statue, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b).[6] The Petitioner asserts that “[t]he answer to this question is a matter of concern to every domestic corporate manufacturer, distributor, retailer, service provider, or end user that is potentially subject to suit for alleged patent infringement.”[7] Specifically, the Petitioner argues that the current rules allow for a Plaintiff patent owner to engage in “forum shopping” and choose the most favorable jurisdiction to file a lawsuit.[8] The Petitioner notes that in 2015 more than 43% of patent infringement cases were brought in one district court, namely the Eastern District of Texas, which is commonly perceived to be a favorable forum for patent owners.[9] The solution to this problem proposed by the Petitioner is for the Supreme Court to set forth an interpretation of the patent venue statue which focuses more on allowing jurisdiction in the venue in which a defendant corporation was incorporated.[10]

The Respondent made several arguments in opposition to the petition, namely that the issue should be resolved by Congress and that the instant case is not a good case to resolve this issue because the Respondent is not a patent troll and does develop and practice the patented technology.[11] Further, the Respondent highlighted the fact that it did not file the lawsuit in the Eastern District of Texas.[12]

A ruling by the Supreme Court could have a significant impact on where patent infringement lawsuits can be filed. A ruling may also determine whether there will still be an outcry for Congress to impose patent reform legislation. Our firm will be monitoring the status of this case and its potential impact. Please contact our office if you have any questions regarding the information in this article.

Daniel Devine, Esq.
Santucci Priore, P.L.
Partner

[1] See, TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Food Brands Group LLC, No. 16-341, 2016 WL 4944616 (Dec. 14, 2016); http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/tc-heartland-llc-v-kraft-foods-group-brands-llc/.
[2] Id.
[3] See, In re TC Heartland LLC, 821 F.3d 1338, 1340-1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
[4] Id. at 1341.
[5] Id. at 1345.
[6] See, http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/16-341-cert-petition.pdf
[7] Id.
[8] Id.
[9] Id.
[10] Id.
[11] See, http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/11/16-341-Brief-in-Opposition.pdf
[12] Id.