George Mason University Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property Senior Scholar Adam Mossoff and 27 other U.S. academics jointly urged the leaders of the House and Senate Judiciary committees Monday to “exercise caution” in considering the patent litigation-focused Venue Equity and Non-Uniformity Elimination (Venue) Act. (S-2733), filed in March (see 1603180057). The legislation would revamp rules for placement of patent infringement lawsuits in federal courts, requiring at least one of the parties involved in the suit be connected directly to the jurisdiction in which the lawsuit is filed. House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., has said he isn’t opposed to narrowly focused patent bills like S-2733 but prefers to focus on his more comprehensive Innovation Act (HR-9), which also addresses patent litigation venue issues (see 1603250056). A “cautious stance” on bills like S-2733 is needed until the effects of the establishment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and other changes to the patent system enacted via the 2011 America Invents Act “are better understood,” the academics said in their letter to Goodlatte and other House and Senate Judiciary leaders. Although calls for revamping venue rules sound plausible because of the high concentration of patent infringement suits in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, the push for bills like S-2733 primarily is coming from tech firms and online retailers “that would rather litigate in a small number of more defendant-friendly jurisdictions,” the academics said. They said other arguments in favor of S-2733 “do not stand up to scrutiny,” including claims the bill would spread lawsuits to other courts around the country. Some S-2733 supporters “have found that restricting venue in a manner similar to the VENUE Act would likely result in concentrating more than 50% of patent lawsuits in just two districts: the District of Delaware (where most publicly traded corporations are incorporated) and the Northern District of California (where many patent defendants are headquartered),” the academics said. S-2733 would “raise costs for many patent owners by requiring them to litigate the same patent against multiple defendants in multiple jurisdictions, increasing patent litigation overall,” the academics said: The bill also “encourages the manipulation of well-settled venue rules across all areas of law by the self-serving efforts of large corporate defendants that seek to insulate themselves from the consequences of violating the law. By enacting the Venue Act, Congress would send a strong signal to corporate defendants that they can tilt the substantive playing field by simply shifting cases to defendant-friendly jurisdictions.”
George Mason University Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property Senior Scholar Adam Mossoff and 27 other U.S. academics jointly urged the leaders of the House and Senate Judiciary committees Monday to “exercise caution” in considering the patent litigation-focused Venue Equity and Non-Uniformity Elimination (Venue) Act. (S-2733), filed in March (see 1603180057). The legislation would revamp rules for placement of patent infringement lawsuits in federal courts, requiring at least one of the parties involved in the suit be connected directly to the jurisdiction in which the lawsuit is filed. House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., has said he isn’t opposed to narrowly focused patent bills like S-2733 but prefers to focus on his more comprehensive Innovation Act (HR-9), which also addresses patent litigation venue issues (see 1603250056). A “cautious stance” on bills like S-2733 is needed until the effects of the establishment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and other changes to the patent system enacted via the 2011 America Invents Act “are better understood,” the academics said in their letter to Goodlatte and other House and Senate Judiciary leaders. Although calls for revamping venue rules sound plausible because of the high concentration of patent infringement suits in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, the push for bills like S-2733 primarily is coming from tech firms and online retailers “that would rather litigate in a small number of more defendant-friendly jurisdictions,” the academics said. They said other arguments in favor of S-2733 “do not stand up to scrutiny,” including claims the bill would spread lawsuits to other courts around the country. Some S-2733 supporters “have found that restricting venue in a manner similar to the VENUE Act would likely result in concentrating more than 50% of patent lawsuits in just two districts: the District of Delaware (where most publicly traded corporations are incorporated) and the Northern District of California (where many patent defendants are headquartered),” the academics said. S-2733 would “raise costs for many patent owners by requiring them to litigate the same patent against multiple defendants in multiple jurisdictions, increasing patent litigation overall,” the academics said: The bill also “encourages the manipulation of well-settled venue rules across all areas of law by the self-serving efforts of large corporate defendants that seek to insulate themselves from the consequences of violating the law. By enacting the Venue Act, Congress would send a strong signal to corporate defendants that they can tilt the substantive playing field by simply shifting cases to defendant-friendly jurisdictions.”
George Mason University Center for the Protection of Intellectual Property Senior Scholar Adam Mossoff and 27 other U.S. academics jointly urged the leaders of the House and Senate Judiciary committees Monday to “exercise caution” in considering the patent litigation-focused Venue Equity and Non-Uniformity Elimination (Venue) Act. (S-2733), filed in March (see 1603180057). The legislation would revamp rules for placement of patent infringement lawsuits in federal courts, requiring at least one of the parties involved in the suit be connected directly to the jurisdiction in which the lawsuit is filed. House Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., has said he isn’t opposed to narrowly focused patent bills like S-2733 but prefers to focus on his more comprehensive Innovation Act (HR-9), which also addresses patent litigation venue issues (see 1603250056). A “cautious stance” on bills like S-2733 is needed until the effects of the establishment of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and other changes to the patent system enacted via the 2011 America Invents Act “are better understood,” the academics said in their letter to Goodlatte and other House and Senate Judiciary leaders. Although calls for revamping venue rules sound plausible because of the high concentration of patent infringement suits in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, the push for bills like S-2733 primarily is coming from tech firms and online retailers “that would rather litigate in a small number of more defendant-friendly jurisdictions,” the academics said. They said other arguments in favor of S-2733 “do not stand up to scrutiny,” including claims the bill would spread lawsuits to other courts around the country. Some S-2733 supporters “have found that restricting venue in a manner similar to the VENUE Act would likely result in concentrating more than 50% of patent lawsuits in just two districts: the District of Delaware (where most publicly traded corporations are incorporated) and the Northern District of California (where many patent defendants are headquartered),” the academics said. S-2733 would “raise costs for many patent owners by requiring them to litigate the same patent against multiple defendants in multiple jurisdictions, increasing patent litigation overall,” the academics said: The bill also “encourages the manipulation of well-settled venue rules across all areas of law by the self-serving efforts of large corporate defendants that seek to insulate themselves from the consequences of violating the law. By enacting the Venue Act, Congress would send a strong signal to corporate defendants that they can tilt the substantive playing field by simply shifting cases to defendant-friendly jurisdictions.”
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of July 25-31:
The head of medical testing company LabMD said he will appeal the FTC's ruling released Friday that found his company liable for unfair data security practices. Almost five months after oral argument (see 1603080005), the commission voted 3-0 to issue the opinion, which overturned a decision by its own in-house judge, who dismissed the case against the company in November. Chairwoman Edith Ramirez, who wrote the opinion, concluded the administrative law judge (ALJ) applied the wrong legal standard for unfairness.
The head of medical testing company LabMD said he will appeal the FTC's ruling released Friday that found his company liable for unfair data security practices. Almost five months after oral argument (see 1603080005), the commission voted 3-0 to issue the opinion, which overturned a decision by its own in-house judge, who dismissed the case against the company in November. Chairwoman Edith Ramirez, who wrote the opinion, concluded the administrative law judge (ALJ) applied the wrong legal standard for unfairness.
The White House on July 25 countered Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump’s threat to withdraw the U.S. from the World Trade Organization if the WTO goes against his plans to raise tariffs on exports from companies that moved their U.S. operations overseas. In response to a question about Trump's discussion of the WTO, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest touted the enforcement mechanisms the WTO provides, highlighting a case the U.S. filed earlier this month against Chinese duties on several raw materials exports (see 1607190039) and added that leaving the WTO could jeopardize global supply chain relationships (here). For example, that could inhibit U.S. companies’ ability to import integral auto parts and support autoworkers, he said. The issue came up on the July 24 episode of Meet the Press (here) when host Chuck Todd suggested to guest Trump that some of his planned tariff increases would be shot down at the WTO. “It doesn't matter,” Trump responded. “Then we're going to renegotiate or we're going to pull out. These trade deals are a disaster, Chuck. World Trade Organization is a disaster.”
The following lawsuits were filed at the Court of International Trade during the week of July 18-24:
Senate Finance Ranking Member Ron Wyden, D-Ore., and House Ways and Means Ranking Member Sandy Levin, D-Mich., urged U.S. Trade Representative Michael Froman and EU Trade Commissioner Cecilia Malmstrom to work more closely to enforce international trade regulations. In a letter (here), the lawmakers noted that the U.S. and China have collaborated at the World Trade Organization and other multilateral bodies on trade enforcement, including leveling a joint WTO case effort against Chinese export restrictions on raw materials (see 1607190039), but they said other cooperation hasn’t gone far enough. An EU official countered the lawmakers' claims, saying in an email that this was the third joint WTO action filed by the U.S. and EU, showing that "we do work together, and effectively." Experts in the European Commission, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative and the Commerce Department should collaborate on whether the upcoming expiration of a section of China’s WTO Accession Protocol in December obligates countries to deem China a market economy, the lawmakers said. China argues that the expiration of the protocol section that stipulates China can be treated as a non-market economy for antidumping purposes underlies an obligation for other countries to treat it as a market economy.
Concerns over potential technical and procedural issues related to the deployment of as-yet-unproven quota systems in ACE are leaving customs brokers uncertain on the eve of the July 23 ACE deadline for most remaining entry types, said brokers in interviews. A lack of real world testing and changes to quota business practices means some brokers aren’t entirely sure what’s going to happen after the deadline. The uncertainty is compounded by the simultaneous decommissioning of legacy Automated Commercial System, which leaves filers without a fallback that has been particularly valuable in the truck environment.