Be careful for what you wish, please note bolded at end:

We have reported previously on the infamous patent litigation venue in the Eastern District of Texas, known to IP attorneys as the “rocket docket” for its plaintiff-friendly and speedy rulings in infringement cases. It’s a venue that strikes fear in the hearts of accused infringers, and where District Judge John Ward has earned a reputation as a maverick — or a loose cannon, depending on which side of his cases you sit. But the rocket docket may soon lose its luster for plaintiff’s attorneys after the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued an unusual writ of mandamus that will make it easier for defendants to spring themselves from the district court’s grasp. The court ruled that Ward “clearly abused” his discretion when he denied TS Tech Co.’s motion to transfer its patent fight with Lear Corp. to a more convenient venue in Ohio. “This opinion is going to prompt even more motions to transfer, and I think it’s going to result in an increase in the success rates of those motions,” said B.C. Boren, an IP litigator with Baker Botts in Palo Alto, CA. “Patent practitioners have been waiting for the courts to speak on the issue of venue, and the appeals court speaks pretty loudly here.”

The ruling bolsters a recent 5th Circuit order that took Ward to task for refusing to transfer a products liability case against Volkswagen out of the district. Although some patent lawyers were skeptical that the 5th Circuit opinion could be carried over to patent cases, Monday’s ruling erased those doubts, liberally citing In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., also called Volkswagen II. “As in Volkswagen II, the district court clearly abused its discretion in denying transfer from a venue with no meaningful ties to the case,” Judge Randall Rader wrote for the three-judge panel. Auto seat maker Lear sued TS Tech in the Eastern District in 2007 for infringing a patent on pivotally attached headrest assemblies. TS Tech filed a motion to transfer the case to Southern District of Ohio, arguing that the venue was closer to the evidence and witnesses. Ward denied the motion, saying that because the headrests were sold in the area, the citizens of the Eastern District had a “substantial interest” in having the case tried locally. Taking the drastic step of granting a writ of mandamus, the Federal Circuit criticized Ward for giving too much weight to Lear’s choice of forum. The panel said that Ward also ignored the fact that witnesses and documentary evidence in the case were in Ohio, Michigan and Canada, not anywhere near Texas. Finally, they ruled that the case had no important connection to the Eastern District of Texas. “The vehicles containing TS Tech’s allegedly infringing headrest assemblies were sold throughout the United States, and thus the citizens of the Eastern District of Texas have no more or less of a meaningful connection to this case than any other venue,” Radar wrote. According to Harold McElhinny, a veteran patent litigator with Morrison & Foerster in San Francisco, the ruling knocks down arguments often used by plaintiffs to keep cases in Ward’s courtroom. “It’s going to make it very hard to keep a patent case in the Eastern District unless a party lives there or has some substantial connection there,” he said.

http://www.technologytransfertactics.com/content/2009/01/14/texas-rocket-docket-gets-comeuppance-in-federal-circuit-ruling/

.

.

Be well