Court competition for patent cases

University of Pennsylvania Law Review

Volumn 163, Issue 3, 2015, Pages 631-698

  Anderson, J Jonas ^a  

^a AMERICAN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84924386062     PISSN: 00419907     EISSN: 19428537     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Review

References (60)

1. Press Release, Perkins Coie, Unprecedented Patent Case Concentration (Sept. 16, 2013), available at http://www.perkinscoie.com/news/news-detail.aspx?news=1476;
2. Ryan Davis, Eastern Texas Judge Has Nation's Busiest Patent Docket, LAW360 (May 13, 2014, 7:42 PM), http://www.law360.com/articles/536886/eastern-texas-judge-has-nation-s-busiest-patent-docket, archived at http://perma.cc/999J-6LXZ
3. Mark A. Lemley, Where to File Your Patent Case, 38 AIPLA Q.J. 401, 407 (2010)
4. FEDERAL COURT MANAGEMENT STATISTICS DECEMBER 2013 (2013), available at http://www.uscourts.gov/Statistics/FederalCourtManagementStatistics/district-courts-december-2013.aspx
5. Henry Wong, An Empirical Look at the District Courts Handling Patent Cases 8 ( Jan. 20, 2012) (unpublished manuscript), available at http://www.socialaw.com/slbook/judgeyoung12/HBW%20Final%20Paper.pdf.
6. Christopher A. Cotropia et al., Unpacking Patent Assertion Entities (PAEs), 99 MINN. L. REV. (forthcoming 2014)
7. David O. Taylor, Patent Misjoinder, 88 N.Y.U. L. REV. 652, 700-06 (2013)
8. Kimberly A. Moore, Forum Shopping in Patent Cases: Does Geographic Choice Affect Innovation?, 79 N.C. L. REV. 889, 903 (2001).
9. Jack Q. Lever, Jr., The New Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (Part I), 64 J. PAT. OFF. SOC'Y 178, 186-97 (1982)
10. Ellen E. Sward & Rodney F. Page, The Federal Courts Improvement Act: A Practitioner's Perspective, 33 AM. U. L. REV. 385, 387-88 (1984)
11. Jeanne C. Fromer, Patentography, 85 N.Y.U. L. REV. 1444, 1463-64 (2010)
12. Megan M. La Belle, The Local Rules of Patent Procedure, 46 ARIZ. ST. L.J. (forthcoming 2015) (manuscript at 18), available at http://ssrn.com/abstract=2459785
13. Rochelle Cooper Dreyfuss, The Federal Circuit: A Case Study in Specialized Courts, 64 N.Y.U. L. REV. 1, 2-4 (1989)
14. LYNN M. LOPUCKI, COURTING FAILURE: HOW COMPETITION FOR BIG CASES IS CORRUPTING THE BANKRUPTCY COURTS 25-48 (2005).
15. J. Skelly Wright, The Federal Courts and the Nature and Quality of State Law, 13 WAYNE L. REV. 317, 333 (1967).
16. Richard A. Posner, What Do Judges and Justices Maximize? (The Same Thing Everybody Else Does), 3 SUP. CT. ECON. REV. 1, 11 (1993)
17. Donald J. Black, The Mobilization of Law, 2 J. LEGAL STUD. 125 (1973)
18. Ted L. Field, Improving the Federal Circuit's Approach to Choice of Law for Procedural Matters in Patent Cases, 16 GEO. MASON L. REV. 643, 685 (2009)
19. Lawrence Baum, Judicial Specialization, Litigant Influence, and Substantive Policy: The Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, 11 LAW & SOC'Y REV. 823, 835 (1977)
20. Wilbur F. Pell, Jr., Patent Law Cases - A Retrospective View from a Lame Swan Appellate Judge, 9 APLA Q.J. 105, 107 (1981)
21. Craig E. Larson & Donald S. Holland, A Study of New Patent Lawyers, 9 APLA Q.J. 12, 33 (1981)
22. Robert D. Yeager, The Patent Profession: A Time to Go Public For New Lawyers, 9 APLA Q.J. 60, 63-64 (1981)
23. J. Jonas Anderson & Peter S. Menell, Informal Deference: A Historical, Empirical, and Normative Analysis of Patent Claim Construction, 108 NW. U. L. REV. 1, 18-21 (2014)
24. Robert L. Harmon, Seven New Rules of Thumb: How the Federal Circuit Has Changed the Way Patent Lawyers Advise Clients, 14 GEO. MASON L. REV. 573, 573-74 (1992).
25. F. M. Scherer, The Political Economy of Patent Policy Reform in the United States, 7 J. ON TELECOMM. & HIGH TECH. L. 167, 188 (2009)
26. Ronen Avraham & John M. Golden, From PI to IP: Yet Another Unexpected Effect of Tort Reform 15-18 (Univ. of Tex. Sch. of Law, Law and Econ., Research Paper No. 211, 2012)
27. Dick Dahl, IP Plaintiffs Flocking to Small Town in Eastern Texas, ST. LOUIS DAILY REC., June 6, 2006
28. Allen Pusey, Marshall Law: Patent Lawyers Flock to East Texas Court for Its Expertise and 'Rocket Docket, ' DALL. MORNING NEWS, Mar. 26, 2006, at 1D
29. Zusha Elinson, IP Trial Strategy: Buying Tivo's Bull, RECORDER ( June 26, 2009), http://www.therecorder.com/id=1202431746710, archived at http://perma.cc/5NMX-GGZT
30. STATE OF DEL., http://www.corp.delaware.gov/aboutagency.shtml (last visited Jan. 16, 2015), archived at http://perma.cc/79GB-ATYL
31. Timothy B. Lee, Courts in Two States Are Tilting the Nation's Patent System Toward Plaintiffs, WASH. POST (Sept. 19, 2013), http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/09/19/courts-in-two-states-are-tilting-the-nations-patent-system-toward-plaintiffs, archived at http://perma.cc/U3EN-SEYV
32. Jerry Markon, A Double Dose of Molasses in the Rocket Docket, WASH. POST, Oct. 3, 2004, at C4.
33. Saurabh Vishnubhakat, Reconceiving the Patent Rocket Docket: An Empirical Study of Infringement Litigation 1985-2010, 11 J. MARSHALL REV. INTELL. PROP. L. 58, 61-63 (2011)
34. Molly Hensley-Clancy, U.S. District Court of Western Pennsylvania Attracts Patent Cases, PITTSBURGH POST GAZETTE ( July 23, 2012, 4:00 AM), http://www.post-gazette.com/business/legal/2012/07/23/U-S-District-Court-of-Western-Pennsylvania-attracts-patent-cases, archived at http://perma.cc/JM3G-2CAL.
35. Xuan-Thao Nguyen, Dynamic Federalism and Patent Law Reform, 85 IND. L.J. 449, 477 & n.196 (2010)
36. INTELL. PROP. L. SEC. (State Bar of Tex., Austin, Tex.), 2007, at 2, available at http://www.texasbariplaw.org/Portals/0/Newsletters/2007/2007%20Advanced%20Patent%20Lit%20Course.pdf ).
37. Allen A. Arntsen & Jeffrey A. Simmons, The Tundra Docket: Western District of Wisconsin, LAW360 (Mar. 12, 2008, 12:00 AM), http://www.law360.com/articles/49923/the-tundradocket-western-district-of-wisconsin, archived at http://perma.cc/62FN-Z2ZG
38. Ron Vogel, The Patent Pilot Program: Reassignment Rates and the Effect of Local Patent Rules, N.Y. INTELL. PROP. L. ASS'N BULL. (N.Y. Intellectual Prop. Law Ass'n, Fort Lee, N.J.), Oct.-Nov. 2013, at 5-6 app. C
39. Edward Reines, Northern District of California's New Patent Rules, PATENTLY-O (Feb. 3, 2008), http://patentlyo.com/patent/2008/02/northern-distri.html, archived at http://perma.cc/66CG-NYQ6
40. Kent A. Jordan, THE SEDONA CONF., https://thesedonaconference.org/bio/jordan-kent (last visited Jan. 16, 2015), archived at http://perma.cc/T3WZ-59QC.
41. Carol J. Mills & Wayne E. Bohannon, Juror Characteristics: To What Extent Are They Related to Jury Verdicts?, 64 JUDICATURE 22, 25 (1980)
42. Ian Ayres, The Twin Faces of Judicial Corruption: Extortion and Bribery, 74 DENV. U. L. REV. 1231, 1235 (1997)
43. Erin Coe, Central Calif. Tops Eastern Texas as Patent Hot Spot, LAW360 ( July 7, 2010, 4:31 PM), http://www.law360.com/topnews/articles/163315/central-calif-tops-eastern-texas-as-patenthot-spot, archived at http://perma.cc/NK8R-62QR
44. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT: EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, http://www.txed.uscourts.gov/page1.shtml?location=info (last visited Jan. 16, 2015), archived at http://perma.cc/7YB6-9FC8.
45. Mike McKool, Founder of McKool Smith in Dallas, TEX. LAW., http://www.texaslawyer.com/id=1202520214208 (lasted visited Feb. -, 2015), archived at http://perma.cc/ETE2-H7LM
46. Brooke Terpening, Practice Makes Perfect? An Empirical Analysis of H.R. 5418, 4 FLA. INT'L U. L. REV. 287, 311 (2008).
47. General Order Assigning Civil and Criminal Actions 11-2 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 3, 2011), available at http://www.txed.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/view-document.cgi?document=20087.
48. Paul R. Gugliuzza, The New Federal Circuit Mandamus, 45 IND. L. REV. 343, 346 (2012).
49. Robert K. Rasmussen & Randall S. Thomas, Whither the Race? A Comment on the Effects of the Delawarization of Corporate Reorganizations, 54 VAND. L. REV. 283, 289-90 (2001)
50. Martin I. Klein, The Bankruptcy Reform Act of 1978, 53 AM. BANKR. L.J. 1, 5 (1979)
51. USITC, U.S. INT'L TRADE COMMISSION, http://www.usitc.gov/press-room/about-usitc.htm (last visited Jan. 16, 2015), archived at http://perma.cc/6QBK-U67C.
52. U.S. INT'L TRADE COMM'N, FACTS AND TRENDS REGARDING USITC SECTION 337 INVESTIGATIONS 1 (2013), available at http://www.usitc.gov/press-room/documents/featured-news/337facts.pdf.
53. David L. Schwartz, Courting Specialization: An Empirical Study of Claim Construction Comparing Patent Litigation Before Federal District Courts and the International Trade Commission, 50 WM. & MARY L. REV. 1699, 1702 (2009)
54. An Interview with the Honorable Paul J. Luckern, Chief Administrative Law Judge of the US International Trade Commission, INTELL. PROP. & TECH. NEWS ( June 28, 2011), https://www.dlapiper.com/en/us/insights/publications/2011/06/an-interview-with-the-honorable-paul-j-luckern-c-/, archivedat https://perma.cc/SJ76-AZCY.
55. Adam Liptak, Court Has Dubious Record as a Class-Action Leader: Critics Say Victims Lose, Even If They Win, N.Y. TIMES, Aug. 15, 2002, at A14
56. Daniel Klerman, Personal Jurisdiction and Product Liability, 85 S. CAL. L. REV. 1551, 1554 (2012)
57. Jonas Anderson, Congress as a Catalyst of Patent Reform at the Federal Circuit, 63 AM. U. L. REV. 961 (2014)
58. Overview of Panel, U.S. JUD. PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIG., http://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/panel-info/overview-panel (last visited Jan. 16, 2015), archived at http://perma.cc/X9DH-GXZ9.
59. U.S. JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIG., CALENDAR YEAR STATISTICS OF THE UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION (2013), available at http://www.jpml.uscourts.gov/sites/jpml/files/JPML-Calendar-Year-Statistics-2013.pdf.
60. Lex Machina Releases First Annual Patent Litigation Year in Review, LEX MACHINA (May 13, 2014), https://lexmachina.com/2014/05/patent-litigation-review, archived at http://perma.cc/L2J2-E6TP.