Alleged infringers may also benefit from multidistrict litigation because all pretrial proceedings are conducted without the pressure of a firm trial date. In particular, it allows for common adjudication of common questions of fact and law, lowered costs compared to concurrent litigation in geographically dispersed district courts, and the possibility of litigating in a patent owner’s favored jurisdiction. Multidistrict litigation presents a variety of advantages for patent owners and alleged infringers alike. Congress authorized the formation of a Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer “civil actions involving one or more common questions of fact” to a single “district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.” The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation has authority to transfer patent cases as it does any other “civil actions.” Indeed, Congress predicted that patent cases would be particularly appropriate for multidistrict litigation. One response to these concerns is multidistrict litigation under 28 U.S.C. They also contend that concurrent litigation in multiple courts will lead to inconsistent outcomes. Generally, they assert that patent infringement litigation will become more costly for patent owners because they may have to assert their rights in multiple jurisdictions throughout the country. Some analysts have concluded that the Supreme Court’s recent decision in TC Heartland will make it more difficult for patent owners to enforce their patents. Transmirra Products Corp., and held that a domestic corporation is only resident in its State of incorporation. Instead, patent infringement cases may only be brought “in the judicial district where the defendant resides, or where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business.” In TC Heartland, the Court reaffirmed its earlier decision in Fourco Glass Co. v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, patent owners may no longer sue alleged patent infringers wherever the alleged infringers are subject to personal jurisdiction.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |