1 00:00:00,080 --> 00:00:02,720 Speaker 1: The U. S. Supreme Court yesterday undercut the ability of 2 00:00:02,759 --> 00:00:06,360 Speaker 1: patent holders to file infringement lawsuits in favorable courts. The 3 00:00:06,440 --> 00:00:08,880 Speaker 1: unanimous ruling said suits generally need to be filed in 4 00:00:08,880 --> 00:00:12,080 Speaker 1: the state where the defendant is incorporated. Okay, that sounds 5 00:00:12,080 --> 00:00:14,440 Speaker 1: really procedural, but it's a sweeping change in the big 6 00:00:14,440 --> 00:00:17,280 Speaker 1: money world of patent litigation. It will bar many plan 7 00:00:17,480 --> 00:00:20,279 Speaker 1: plaintiffs from suing in the Eastern District of Texas, a 8 00:00:20,320 --> 00:00:22,880 Speaker 1: patent friendly jurisdiction where more than a third of all 9 00:00:22,920 --> 00:00:26,240 Speaker 1: infringement suits are now filed. With us to talk about 10 00:00:26,280 --> 00:00:29,200 Speaker 1: the ruling and its implications is Bloomberg News his own 11 00:00:29,240 --> 00:00:33,720 Speaker 1: Susan Decker. She's our patent expert here in the newsroom 12 00:00:33,800 --> 00:00:38,360 Speaker 1: in Washington. Sue, thanks for joining us. Uh uh. Talk first, 13 00:00:38,400 --> 00:00:41,639 Speaker 1: just about what the rule had been before this decision 14 00:00:41,720 --> 00:00:45,360 Speaker 1: from the Supreme Court this week. Basically, it was patent 15 00:00:45,440 --> 00:00:47,800 Speaker 1: owners could file wherever they want to. I used to 16 00:00:47,840 --> 00:00:50,440 Speaker 1: refer to it as the Walmart rule. If the product 17 00:00:50,479 --> 00:00:52,319 Speaker 1: was sold out a Walmart, that was enough to give 18 00:00:52,400 --> 00:00:56,080 Speaker 1: jurisdiction that in whatever court you wanted. So tell us 19 00:00:56,120 --> 00:01:00,800 Speaker 1: about Martiall Texas. That's uh. In Eastern Texas, and it 20 00:01:00,880 --> 00:01:06,200 Speaker 1: is a place where, um, you know, patent patent owners 21 00:01:06,280 --> 00:01:09,280 Speaker 1: have apparently just loved to file their lawsuits. And it's 22 00:01:09,319 --> 00:01:11,399 Speaker 1: been that way for more than a decade now. The 23 00:01:11,600 --> 00:01:15,279 Speaker 1: entire Eastern District of Texas, which is a rather large area, 24 00:01:15,360 --> 00:01:18,760 Speaker 1: is three point five million people, but Marshall is only 25 00:01:18,760 --> 00:01:23,199 Speaker 1: twenty people, and yet more than nineteen hundred patent suits 26 00:01:23,240 --> 00:01:26,920 Speaker 1: were filed there last year. Go ahead, I'm sorry. So 27 00:01:26,920 --> 00:01:30,360 Speaker 1: what so Wilson as the Supreme Court decision gonna end 28 00:01:30,360 --> 00:01:32,840 Speaker 1: all that just cut of back a little? What do 29 00:01:32,880 --> 00:01:36,720 Speaker 1: we know? It's We believe it's going to significantly detail it. 30 00:01:36,920 --> 00:01:39,280 Speaker 1: There is because of the fact that they say, oh, 31 00:01:39,400 --> 00:01:43,360 Speaker 1: domestic domestic corporations have to be sued in the in 32 00:01:43,400 --> 00:01:46,160 Speaker 1: the areas in which they're incorporated. That's going to put 33 00:01:46,160 --> 00:01:49,800 Speaker 1: a lot of tech company cases back in California, for instance. 34 00:01:49,840 --> 00:01:51,720 Speaker 1: It's going to put a lot of cases in Delaware. 35 00:01:52,200 --> 00:01:55,920 Speaker 1: There's the caveats there. One is that it only applies 36 00:01:55,960 --> 00:02:00,360 Speaker 1: to domestic corporations, and the other is that, um, it's 37 00:02:00,360 --> 00:02:02,760 Speaker 1: going to overwhelm those two courts. So there may be 38 00:02:02,960 --> 00:02:05,920 Speaker 1: some legal arguments to keep the cases in Texas or 39 00:02:05,960 --> 00:02:09,120 Speaker 1: perhaps some other courts. Talk to me about who the 40 00:02:09,160 --> 00:02:14,280 Speaker 1: winners and losers are in this, Who who benefits? Because 41 00:02:14,440 --> 00:02:18,000 Speaker 1: it is now harder to sue in places like Marshall, 42 00:02:18,400 --> 00:02:21,760 Speaker 1: the Silicon Valley companies in particular, UM, they get sued 43 00:02:21,840 --> 00:02:25,040 Speaker 1: a lot in Texas. UM, you will have what I 44 00:02:25,080 --> 00:02:27,680 Speaker 1: refer to as pay me to go away cases where 45 00:02:27,760 --> 00:02:30,560 Speaker 1: it's a patent owner who doesn't make a product, probably 46 00:02:30,600 --> 00:02:33,560 Speaker 1: bought the patent from the inventor, and it's just looking 47 00:02:33,600 --> 00:02:37,280 Speaker 1: for a quick by, you know, quick sellout. UM. The 48 00:02:37,320 --> 00:02:39,320 Speaker 1: tech companies can say, no, no, no, you have to 49 00:02:39,560 --> 00:02:42,320 Speaker 1: have these cases filed in California, which is going to 50 00:02:42,400 --> 00:02:45,079 Speaker 1: be inconvenient, it's going to be more expensive, and you're 51 00:02:45,080 --> 00:02:47,880 Speaker 1: gonna have more tech savvy juries, so they won't be 52 00:02:47,960 --> 00:02:50,800 Speaker 1: able to get as much money. UM. The So the 53 00:02:50,800 --> 00:02:53,200 Speaker 1: tech companies will love it, as some of the smaller 54 00:02:53,240 --> 00:02:57,200 Speaker 1: independent UM what they refer to as nonpracticing entities pejoratively 55 00:02:57,240 --> 00:03:00,640 Speaker 1: as trolls, are not going to like it. So this, 56 00:03:01,400 --> 00:03:04,320 Speaker 1: of course is what's the ruling about a statute which 57 00:03:04,360 --> 00:03:08,359 Speaker 1: means that Congress could jump in and change things. Is 58 00:03:08,400 --> 00:03:12,120 Speaker 1: there any talk at this point of of Congress UM 59 00:03:12,560 --> 00:03:17,960 Speaker 1: rewriting the patent venue rules so that suits can be 60 00:03:18,000 --> 00:03:21,360 Speaker 1: filed in more places. Well, the tech companies in particular 61 00:03:21,440 --> 00:03:23,960 Speaker 1: have been lobbying Congress for years to make it even 62 00:03:24,120 --> 00:03:26,960 Speaker 1: more stringent than what the Supreme Court did. Essentially, they 63 00:03:26,960 --> 00:03:30,480 Speaker 1: want out of Texas entirely. Uh. When I spoke to 64 00:03:30,520 --> 00:03:33,280 Speaker 1: a number of people after the ruling, UM, there had 65 00:03:33,440 --> 00:03:36,720 Speaker 1: you know, will this mean, oh, there's no need for legislation? Um? 66 00:03:36,800 --> 00:03:39,440 Speaker 1: They say no. They continue to push from even more 67 00:03:39,440 --> 00:03:42,440 Speaker 1: stringent rules from Congress, which is going to put them 68 00:03:42,520 --> 00:03:45,000 Speaker 1: up against the drug companies and some of the other 69 00:03:45,000 --> 00:03:47,720 Speaker 1: people who say no patent laws gone the other way 70 00:03:47,720 --> 00:03:50,560 Speaker 1: and it's too much in favor of defendants and not 71 00:03:50,680 --> 00:03:53,200 Speaker 1: enough in favor of patent lawyers. So it's going to 72 00:03:53,320 --> 00:03:56,400 Speaker 1: keep Congress busy for another couple of years. You talked 73 00:03:56,400 --> 00:03:59,160 Speaker 1: to a lot of patent lawyers. Um, what's been the 74 00:03:59,160 --> 00:04:02,120 Speaker 1: reaction from them? I mean, this, this is a it 75 00:04:02,200 --> 00:04:06,000 Speaker 1: was a unanimous Supreme Court ruling that that changed basically 76 00:04:06,000 --> 00:04:08,760 Speaker 1: what the rules of the road had been for twenty 77 00:04:08,880 --> 00:04:11,080 Speaker 1: or thirty years. What what have you heard from folks 78 00:04:11,120 --> 00:04:14,520 Speaker 1: about Are they surprised by this ruling? There was no 79 00:04:14,560 --> 00:04:17,120 Speaker 1: surprise at all. Um, it was Even though the word 80 00:04:17,200 --> 00:04:19,840 Speaker 1: Texas never appears in the opinion and it was barely 81 00:04:19,880 --> 00:04:24,280 Speaker 1: mentioned during arguments, the subtext was there all along. Um, 82 00:04:24,400 --> 00:04:27,520 Speaker 1: they knew that there had been pressure on Congress to 83 00:04:27,560 --> 00:04:30,920 Speaker 1: do something, and that every time there's pressure on Congress, 84 00:04:31,400 --> 00:04:33,520 Speaker 1: the Supreme Court steps in and says, no, we'll take 85 00:04:33,560 --> 00:04:38,080 Speaker 1: care of this issue. You mentioned some of the lingering questions. Um, 86 00:04:38,440 --> 00:04:40,359 Speaker 1: let me just ask you about one of them, which 87 00:04:40,440 --> 00:04:45,279 Speaker 1: is non US companies. What do we what do we 88 00:04:45,360 --> 00:04:46,960 Speaker 1: know or what do we think or what are you 89 00:04:47,000 --> 00:04:50,000 Speaker 1: hearing about where say, a company like Samsung could be 90 00:04:50,040 --> 00:04:53,599 Speaker 1: sued for patent infringement. Well, one, maybe if they have 91 00:04:53,640 --> 00:04:56,840 Speaker 1: a U S subsidiary where that's incorporated. Also, there's a 92 00:04:56,839 --> 00:04:59,640 Speaker 1: provision of the law that says where they have regular 93 00:04:59,760 --> 00:05:02,720 Speaker 1: or established place of business. Um. And there's gonna be 94 00:05:02,720 --> 00:05:04,840 Speaker 1: a lot of debate over that to say, well, they 95 00:05:04,839 --> 00:05:08,280 Speaker 1: may not be um in Um, they may not be 96 00:05:08,360 --> 00:05:10,880 Speaker 1: in the US, but they have a regular business a 97 00:05:10,920 --> 00:05:14,360 Speaker 1: storefront or again the Walmart rule, Um, that would keep 98 00:05:14,400 --> 00:05:17,479 Speaker 1: them in certain districts. Last thing for you, We have 99 00:05:17,480 --> 00:05:20,040 Speaker 1: about thirty seconds left or so. But at the end 100 00:05:20,040 --> 00:05:23,920 Speaker 1: of the day, Uh, would one say that this ruling 101 00:05:24,000 --> 00:05:27,200 Speaker 1: is going to make it harder for for patent owners 102 00:05:27,240 --> 00:05:30,680 Speaker 1: to successfully when when their lawsuits because they can't choose 103 00:05:30,960 --> 00:05:33,160 Speaker 1: the courts where they think they have the best chance 104 00:05:33,160 --> 00:05:37,120 Speaker 1: of success, well most courts generally. Actually, you do have 105 00:05:37,400 --> 00:05:39,520 Speaker 1: a greater chance of success as a patent owner, So 106 00:05:39,560 --> 00:05:42,920 Speaker 1: it wouldn't necessarily eliminate it, but it's not going to 107 00:05:43,000 --> 00:05:47,200 Speaker 1: be quite as friendly. Okay, that was Bloomberg. Susan Decker, 108 00:05:47,320 --> 00:05:51,799 Speaker 1: she covers patents here in the news room in Washington. 109 00:05:51,880 --> 00:05:55,160 Speaker 1: We're talking about the Supreme Court decision that came down 110 00:05:55,200 --> 00:05:59,360 Speaker 1: this week, uh unanimous decision in a case called case 111 00:05:59,360 --> 00:06:03,680 Speaker 1: called TC. Hartland. The Supreme Court said that you have 112 00:06:03,800 --> 00:06:05,760 Speaker 1: less less choice than you used to have about where 113 00:06:05,760 --> 00:06:07,239 Speaker 1: you're going to follow your patent lawsuit.