I was reading up on the post, HTC, LG, ASUSTek, Pantech join Samsung in moving for dismissal of Rockstar Android lawsuits, and it ended up being more confusing to me than it is an update on the situation. The article is primarily an update on the situation, but it is a learning experience for me on the technicalities. I went on to do a bit of research on the technical terms mentioned in the article which helped make sense of it.
Below is a brief summary of some of these foreign terms (at least to me)
America Invents Act (AIA)'s joinder rule: Previously, the patentee was allowed to sue unrelated companies through a single patent lawsuit, and that made it difficult for transferring cases. It also allowed the patentee to reach high settlements from many companies through a single lawsuit. However, with the change in joinder rules in 2012, multiple, unrelated defendants may be joined only if the case relates to the same accused product or process, and not because they all infringe the patents brought to court.
First-to-file: Not to be confused with first-to-file for patent application, this means that if there are two lawsuits in different locations relating to the same companies and case, the case will be tried in the district where it was first filed. However, there are exceptions to it such as if the first cased was filed as an anticipated lawsuit. In layman terms, if I know you will be suing me, I should sue you first in a place that is more advantageous for me, knowing that if you sue me, by first-to-file ruling, it will get transferred to my chosen place. For such a situation, there is thus some exception to try the case in the second place.
Writ of mandamus: Simply put, it is an order by a superior court to a subordinate court to properly fulfill its duties, such as making a decision when due, or correct a mistake.
Sources:
http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/02/htc-lg-asustek-pantech-join-samsung-in.html
http://www.insidecounsel.com/2013/04/09/ip-the-failure-of-venue-and-joinder-reform-in-pate
http://www.jha.com/us/blog/?blogID=1372
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/mandamus
Below is a brief summary of some of these foreign terms (at least to me)
America Invents Act (AIA)'s joinder rule: Previously, the patentee was allowed to sue unrelated companies through a single patent lawsuit, and that made it difficult for transferring cases. It also allowed the patentee to reach high settlements from many companies through a single lawsuit. However, with the change in joinder rules in 2012, multiple, unrelated defendants may be joined only if the case relates to the same accused product or process, and not because they all infringe the patents brought to court.
First-to-file: Not to be confused with first-to-file for patent application, this means that if there are two lawsuits in different locations relating to the same companies and case, the case will be tried in the district where it was first filed. However, there are exceptions to it such as if the first cased was filed as an anticipated lawsuit. In layman terms, if I know you will be suing me, I should sue you first in a place that is more advantageous for me, knowing that if you sue me, by first-to-file ruling, it will get transferred to my chosen place. For such a situation, there is thus some exception to try the case in the second place.
Writ of mandamus: Simply put, it is an order by a superior court to a subordinate court to properly fulfill its duties, such as making a decision when due, or correct a mistake.
Sources:
http://www.fosspatents.com/2014/02/htc-lg-asustek-pantech-join-samsung-in.html
http://www.insidecounsel.com/2013/04/09/ip-the-failure-of-venue-and-joinder-reform-in-pate
http://www.jha.com/us/blog/?blogID=1372
http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/mandamus
I didn't know that a company could sue a bunch of other companies under one patent infringement case. I think it's good that they changed that because it's rather unfair and gives advantage to the plaintiff. However, I think first-to-file is a bit unfair. I think there should be a better way to determine location, preferably in a neutral zone kind of like how the Super Bowl location is picked well in advance. Otherwise, one team has home field advantage over the other and that's not playing fair.
ReplyDeleteJun Yi,
ReplyDeleteThanks for making the effort to research in the terminology. I was also trying to read through the article you chose but got confused by the unfamiliarity of the words usage. It used to be in plaintiff's advantage to sue many companies through one suit, which I agree with Amy that it is very unfair. The First-to-file situation is also very interesting that companies are creating a racing condition on suing each other. The patent suing game is going to be very tricky when it comes to the reform bill.
Despite the problems in first-to-file, I think it's still the best system to go by. Although it's unfortunate that the system allows for entities to be hurt by exploitation or bad luck, first-to-file gives everyone a reasonably fair playing field.
ReplyDeleteInteresting blog post! So how do you think the change in joinder rules in 2012 affected the system as a whole? I also liked how you brought up the First-to file (in terms of ruling the case in the district where it was filed), especially since location is so important as we talked about in class. I had heard about the first to file for the patent application, but I hadn't heard about this rule before. Also, thank you for explaining Writ of mandamus-- it is good to know the legal terminology!
ReplyDeleteI would say the change in the joinder rule gave the defendants more security against unreasonable lawsuits. For example, if there were a patent for a unique fishing line, and different industries, take another fishing company and a clothes designer, made use of a similar material. The patent holder cannot just sue both of them together now since they are very different cases, one regarding tensile strength of the fishing line and another may be due to other properties such as anti-creasing when washed (just a fake scenario here, obviously).
DeleteThe patent holder would, before the rule change, have been able to sue both companies in a single lawsuit which is definitely unfair since they are totally different cases albeit infringing the same patent. Of course, my example is pretty far-fetched, but that is one possibility how cases could go if exploited.
Excellent idea for a post.
ReplyDelete