Note that 28 USC §1400 is still in force; the Congress did not choose to remove the limits on patent case jurisdiction when it expanded other jurisdiction. It's right there in the US Code in black letters with no ambiguity.
But the notoriously corrupt patent appeals court -- the CAFC -- in its first decade of existence, abolished 28 USC §1400 by fiat.
The patent trolls went into business in East Texas soon after.
So is 28 USC §1400. It was not repealed and plainly sets more particular jurisdiction for patent cases. What can Congress do now to re-institute the validity of it? It's already in the USC. Pass a new clause "and we really mean it!"? CAFC judges have contempt for the canons of statutory construction when entrepreneurial judging can benefit them personally.
Comments
Note that 28 USC §1400 is still in force; the Congress did not choose to remove the limits on patent case jurisdiction when it expanded other jurisdiction. It's right there in the US Code in black letters with no ambiguity.
But the notoriously corrupt patent appeals court -- the CAFC -- in its first decade of existence, abolished 28 USC §1400 by fiat.
The patent trolls went into business in East Texas soon after.
28 USC 1391 is actually very clear. As much as i don't like the CAFC, their interpretation of it is completely and totally defensible.
So is 28 USC §1400. It was not repealed and plainly sets more particular jurisdiction for patent cases. What can Congress do now to re-institute the validity of it? It's already in the USC. Pass a new clause "and we really mean it!"? CAFC judges have contempt for the canons of statutory construction when entrepreneurial judging can benefit them personally.