Why it matters that patent trolls won’t be able to force their cases in Texas

Until now, a company suing another company over patent infringement in the United States had a lot of leeway as to where the case could be filed, leading many patent holders to bring lawsuits in districts where the local laws and courts are more likely to rule on their side.

It’s a practice called “venue shopping,” and in the U.S., the Eastern District of Texas quickly became particularly notorious for hearing patent cases after a local judge changed the laws in a way that’s favorable to patent holders. In 1999, the Texas district only had 14 patent cases filed. By 2015, that number grew to 2,540.

But now, after a ruling issued from the Supreme Court yesterday, patent holders have less room to move when suing corporate defendants. In TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods, the Supreme Court ruled in a unanimous decision that patent cases can only be brought in districts where infringement actually happened, or in places where the defendant has an established business.

This change could have a positive effect on the tech industry, where startups have long been vulnerable to the threat of “patent trolls” — businesses that hold multiple patents or broadly worded patents, that they monetize by suing other businesses that are making similar products or services. These patent holders are called “trolls” because the practice is often their main source of income. Trolls regularly push defendants to settle, at times even putting them out of business entirely.

This ruling will particularly matter for small businesses that can’t afford long, drawn-out legal fights in distant parts of the country, where the court battle may already be unfavorable to them. Software companies are especially prone to patent trolling, since the language of software patents is often broad and vague enough to cover all kinds of software applications.

Now cases will likely be heard in more locations, where the cards may be less stacked in favor of trolls.

This article originally appeared on Recode.net.

Will you support Vox’s explanatory journalism?

Most news outlets make their money through advertising or subscriptions. But when it comes to what we’re trying to do at Vox, there are a couple reasons that we can't rely only on ads and subscriptions to keep the lights on.

First, advertising dollars go up and down with the economy. We often only know a few months out what our advertising revenue will be, which makes it hard to plan ahead.

Second, we’re not in the subscriptions business. Vox is here to help everyone understand the complex issues shaping the world — not just the people who can afford to pay for a subscription. We believe that’s an important part of building a more equal society. We can’t do that if we have a paywall.

That’s why we also turn to you, our readers, to help us keep Vox free. If you also believe that everyone deserves access to trusted high-quality information, will you make a gift to Vox today?

One-Time Monthly Annual

$5/month

$10/month

$25/month

$50/month

Other

$

Yes, I'll give $5/month

Yes, I'll give $5/month

We accept credit card, Apple Pay, and Google Pay. You can also contribute via