US INVENTOR FILES AMICUS BRIEF IN APPLE VENUE CASE
US Inventor calls for the Court of Appeals to deny the Apple venue petition to relocate patent litigation from Texas to the Northern District of California. Apple has no legitimate reasons for transfer, as they are well established in Texas—the Western District specifically. This would not promote convenience or justice, but only increase the cost of litigation for inventors and small businesses, denying equal access to justice and the right to a fair and speedy trial.
Click here to read the Apple Venue Case brief.
Introduction: “The Magna Carta admonished thirteenth-century jurists ‘to no one deny or delay right or justice.’ The rules governing the Federal Judicial system echo this—courts must ‘secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding.’ Specifically, the transfer statute permits change of venue only for ‘the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice.’
“These principles of swift and inexpensive justice are easy to agree with but are sometimes difficult to implement. This Court’s recent §1404 jurisprudence falls short of the dual aims of ‘convenience’ and ‘justice.’ In re Apple is the crest of a wave of reversals eroding the deference afforded to district courts’ §1404 rulings. As a result, mandamus petition practice has exploded.
“This Court issued about ten times as many §1404 mandamus decisions as the Fifth Circuit since 2008, even though the Fifth Circuit’s overall caseload is 493% higher than the Federal Circuit’s. This drastic increase in filing stems from the Court’s treatment of mandamus petitions on patent venue issues, which amounts to de facto interlocutory review.
“Rather than promote convenience, this once unheard-of use of mandamus injects cost and delay, barring individual inventors and small companies from equal access to justice. US Inventor writes to respectfully urge the Court to restore efficiency and access to justice by granting the petition for rehearing en banc and reaffirming deference to district courts’ evidentiary decisions on §1404 motions.”
