The federal court covering the Eastern District of Texas has attracted a huge number of patent cases because its procedures are efficient and predictable, enabling plaintiffs to sue multiple defendants. Other federal courts looking to attract more patent cases may copy its procedures -- especially since the growing backlog in the Eastern District has added a year to waiting times for trial there. Formerly considered plaintiff-friendly, that district isn't anymore: plaintiffs had only an 11 percent win rate in the first part of 2007 -- a figure that's amazingly low.
http://masshightech.bizjournals.com/...
The Supreme Court case (LG verses Quanta) could have major ramification on PTSC if they rule against LG. PTSC/TPL may have to change their methods (infringement targets). At first glance that looks like a negative but it could work out to be a real plus factor for PTSC.
J3, settlement was made after the Supreme Court decided to hear the LG/Quanta case for the following reason:
------------------------------------...
Based on the following comment (not my words):
Not a surprise that cert was granted, given that the US Solicitor General's Amicus Brief supported the petitioner. Given what happened in KSR International and AT&T v. Microsoft, it would be a surprise if the Federal Circuit wasn't reversed by the Supreme Court. I'm just hoping this stream of patent cases being heard by the Supreme Court ends soon before the Justices completely muck up the patent law and render the Federal Circuit's Congress mandated expertise in this area null and void.
---------------------------------------
IMO, the J3s would have used the LG/Quanta Supreme Court hearing news as a bargaining factor in their favor, especially if the infringed microprocessors were purchased from Intel Corp or the few other TPL licenced microprocessor manufactures.
I believe Intel has about 10% of the microprocessor market. These other manufactures will have to pay us big money for a license or stop selling these chips. Which means we may start selling our own chips or joint venture microprocessors with resistant manufactures rather then selling unlimited licenses or attempting to charge royalties. No matter what happens we must stop selling unlimited licenses for basically nuisance fees.
If the first sale doctrine is strictly applied, we could refuse to license manufactures and only sue retailers for infringement when they sold products with microprocessors produced by unlicensed manufactures. IMO, this probably the way we will operate.
I think it may get confusing, but we will come out smelling like a rose. The confusion could actually work for us. Before XYZ computer manufacture or ABC automobile manufacture orders chips for their products they will want indemnification from the part manufacture that in the event they are sued by TPL, the manufacture will pay all expenses and court infringement judgements. This will put pressure on the microprocessor manufacture or the finished product producer to eventually purchase a TPL/ PTSC license and / or pay a royalty.
All in my opinion. GLTAL
