WIPR survey: Supreme Court correct in TC Heartland v Kraft Foods case
The US Supreme Court was correct to tighten the rules on where a patent lawsuit can be filed, according to WIPR readers.
All of the respondents to a recent WIPR survey agreed that the court made the right decision in TC Heartland v Kraft Foods.
In an 8-0 ruling last month, the court tightened the rules on patent venue, holding that 28 USC section 1400(b) is the sole and exclusive provision governing venue in patent infringement actions.
The ruling had been described as “seismic” and a “staggering blow” to non-practising entities and practitioners that had “built their business models around exacting settlement leverage over domestic corporations by forcing them to litigate in perceived plaintiff-friendly venues”, according to lawyers who spoke to WIPR.
One reader claimed that it was the right result, as “venue shopping has gone too far”, while another said that “in the absence of harmonised rules for the conduct of patent infringement cases, the abolition of rampant forum-shopping was essential for the good functioning of the patent system in the US”.
Another reader explained that the ruling will probably lead to a significant reduction in the number of cases filed in patentee-friendly jurisdictions.
The company's report stated that the court, which is popular for patent filings, may see a decrease of 10,000 new cases next year.
For this week’s survey, we ask: "Last week, a judge found that Drake’s sampling of a spoken-word jazz track in one of his songs was fair use. If the judge’s finding were to survive any appellate scrutiny, would it have far-reaching consequences for the use of sampling?"
Did you enjoy reading this story? Sign up to our free daily newsletters and get stories like this sent straight to your inbox
