Offensive venue: The curious use of declaratory judgment to forum shop in patent litigation

George Washington Law Review

Volumn 80, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 1065-1114

  Chuang, Chester S ^a  

^a GOLDEN GATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84876899046     PISSN: 00168076     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Mark A. Lemley, Where to File Your Patent Case, 38 AIPLA Q.J. 401, 411-15 (2010).
2. Kimberly A. Moore, Forum Shopping in Patent Cases: Does Geographic Choice Affect Innovation?, 79 N.C. L. REV. 889, 892 (2001)
3. Paul M. Janicke, Patent Venue and Convenience Transfer: New World or Small Shift?, 11 N.C. J.L. & TECH. ONLINE EDITION 1, 6-8 (2009), http://www.ncjolt.org/sites/default/files/Janicke.pdf.
4. Kevin A. Meehan, Shopping for Expedient, Inexpensive & Predictable Patent Litigation, B.C. INTELL. PROP. & TECH. F., no. 102,901, 2008, at 2, http://bciptf.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/14-iptf-meehan.pdf.
5. Jeanne C. Fromer, Patentography, 85 N.Y.U. L. REV. 1444, 1462-63 (2010).
6. Kimberly A. Moore, Judges, Juries, and Patent Cases -an Empirical Peek Inside the Black Box, 99 MICH. L. REV. 365, 368 (2000).
7. Kevin M. Clermont & Theodore Eisenberg, Exorcising the Evil of Forum-Shopping, 80 CORNELL L. REV 1507, 1509 (1995).
8. Scott E. Atkinson et al., The Economics of a Centralized Judiciary: Uniformity, Forum Shopping, and the Federal Circuit, 52 J.L. & ECON. 411, 411-13 (2009).
9. Richard C. Wydick, Venue in Actions for Patent Infringement, 25 STAN. L. REV. 551, 551 (1973).
10. JANICE M. MUELLER, PATENT LAW 42 (3d ed. 2009).
11. JAMES BESSEN & MICHAEL J. MEURER, PATENT FAILURE: HOW JUDGES, BUREAUCRATS, AND LAWYERS PUT INNOVATORS AT RISK 127, 128 fig.6.2 (2008).
12. Colleen V. Chien, of Trolls, Davids, Goliaths, and Kings: Narratives and Evidence in the Litigation of High-Tech Patents, 87 N.C. L. REV. 1571, 1584 (2009).
13. Chester S. Chuang, Unjust Patents & Bargaining Breakdown: When Is Declaratory Relief Needed?, 64 SMU L. REV. 895, 908-10 (2011).
14. Dan L. Burk & Mark A. Lemley, Fence Posts or Sign Posts? Rethinking Patent Claim Construction, 157 U. PA. L. REV. 1743, 1745 (2009).
15. Timothy R. Holbrook, Equivalency and Patent Law's Possession Paradox, 23 HARV. J.L. & TECH. 1, 14 (2009).
16. Jeffrey A. Lefstin, Claim Construction, Appeal, and the Predictability of Interpretive Regimes, 61 U. MIAMI L. REV. 1033, 1037-39 (2007).
17. DAN L. BURK & MARK A. LEMLEY, THE PATENT CRISIS AND HOW THE COURTS CAN SOLVE IT 28 (2009).
18. Yan Leychkis, of Fire Ants and Claim Construction: An Empirical Study of the Meteoric Rise of the Eastern District of Texas as a Preeminent Forum for Patent Litigation, 9 YALE J.L. & TECH. 193, 197 (2007).
19. James Bessen & Michael J. Meurer, Lessons for Patent Policy from Empirical Research on Patent Litigation, 9 LEWIS & CLARK L. REV. 1, 25-26 (2005).
20. Homer Yang-hsien Hsu, Note, Neutralizing Actual Controversy: How Patent Holders Can Reduce the Risk of Declaratory Judgment in Patent Disputes, 6 WASH. J.L. TECH. & ARTS 93, 9596 (2010).
21. Tejas N. Narechania, Note, An Offensive Weapon?: An Empirical Analysis of the "Sword" of State Sovereign Immunity in State-Owned Patents, 110 COLUM. L. REV. 1574, 1590-91 (2010).
22. Marta R. Vanegas, Note, You Infringed My Patent, Now Wait Until I Sue You: The Federal Circuit's Decision in Avocent Huntsville Corp. v. Aten International Co., 92 J. PAT. & TRADEMARK OFF. SOC'Y 371, 384 (2010).
23. Antony L. Ryan, Principles of Forum Selection, 103 W. VA. L. REV. 167, 186 (2000).
24. Megan Woodhouse, Note, Shop 'til You Drop: Implementing Federal Rules of Patent Litigation Procedure to Wear Out Forum Shopping Patent Plaintiffs, 99 GEO. L.J. 227, 228 (2010).
25. Mark Liang, The Aftermath of TS Tech: The End of Forum Shopping in Patent Litigation and Implications for Non-Practicing Entities, 19 TEX. INTELL. PROP. L.J. 29, 39-43 (2010).
26. Mark A. Lemley & J. H. Walker, Intellectual Property Litigation Clearinghouse: Data Overview (Stanford Pub. Law Working Paper No. 1,024,032), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract= 1024032
27. Lee Epstein & Gary King, The Rules of Inference, 69 U. CHI. L. REV. 1, 107 n.335 (2002).
28. David L. Schwartz, Pre-Markman Reversal Rates, 43 LOY. L.A. L. REV. 1073, 1101-07 (2010).
29. Jean O. Lanjouw & Josh Lerner, Tilting the Table? The Use of Preliminary Injunctions, 44 J.L. & ECON. 573, 574 (2001).
30. Xuan-Thao Nguyen, Justice Scalia's "Renegade Jurisdiction": Lessons for Patent Law Reform, 83 TUL. L. REV. 111, 134-42 (2008).
31. Paul M. Janicke, Venue Transfers From the Eastern District of Texas: Case by Case or an Endemic Problem?, LANDSLIDE, Mar./Apr. 2010, at 16.
32. Andrei Iancu & Jay Chung, Real Reasons the Eastern District of Texas Draws Patent Cases -Beyond Lore and Anecdote, 14 SMU SCI. & TECH. L. REV. 299, 303-08 (2011).
33. Li Zhu, Note, Taking Off: Recent Changes to Venue Transfer of Patent Litigation in the Rocket Docket, 11 MINN. J.L. SCI. & TECH. 901, 905 (2010).
34. Mark A. Lemley, Rational Ignorance at the Patent Office, 95 NW. U. L. REV. 1495, 1505 (2001).
35. Paul J. LaVanway, Jr., Note, Patent Licensing and Discretion: Reevaluating the Discretionary Prong of Declaratory Judgment Jurisdiction After MedImmune, 92 MINN. L. REV. 1966, 1975 & n.65 (2008)
36. Stuart J.H. Graham et al., High Technology Entrepreneurs and the Patent System: Results of the 2008 Berkeley Patent Survey, 24 BERKELEY TECH. L.J. 1255, 1315-16 (2009).
37. Michael J. Meurer, Controlling Opportunistic and Anti-Competitive Intellectual Property Litigation, 44 B.C. L. REV. 509, 517-25 (2003).
38. Kelly Casey Mullally, Legal (Un)certainty, Legal Process, and Patent Law, 43 LOY. L.A. L. REV. 1109, 1142-44 (2010).
39. Linda J. Silberman, The Impact of Jurisdictional Rules and Recognition Practice on International Business Transactions: The U.S. Regime, 26 HOUS. J. INT'L L. 327, 344 (2004).
40. STEPHEN W. HAWKING, A BRIEF HISTORY OF TIME 89 (1988
41. Eric E. Johnson, The Black Hole Case: The Injunction Against the End of the World, 76 TENN. L. REV. 819, 821 (2009).
42. Joseph E. Stiglitz, Economic Foundations of Intellectual Property Rights, 57 DUKE L.J. 1693, 1706 (2008).
43. David L. Schwartz, Practice Makes Perfect? An Empirical Study of Claim Construction Reversal Rates in Patent Cases, 107 MICH. L. REV. 223, 244 (2008).