Supreme Court Ruling Should Spell the End of Apple's Patent Troll Battles in East Texas [Updated]

Apple can be sued in Delaware, where it is incorporated, or anywhere else it has a regular place of business and is alleged to infringe. That would include East Texas if it has any offices or stores there.

Tomorrow's news:
"Apple announces plans to close all stores in east Texas."

This article says Apple is incorporated in Delaware? http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/01/business/how-delaware-thrives-as-a-corporate-tax-haven.html

That article is incorrect or unclear. They are registered in Delaware, but are incorporated in California. From Apple's investor FAQ page:

When was Apple incorporated?
Apple was incorporated in the state of California on January 3, 1977.

http://investor.apple.com/faq.cfm

I did read it, but to fully appreciate a legal opinion, you really need legal experience... that's why one should read the professional interpretations as well. While I did read that one can sue where one does business, in this case, the defendant won despite doing business in Delaware. So it seems a little contradictory...

Ruling is very clear they have no business in Delaware (no offices)

Despite what The Wall Street Journal and several other media outlets are saying, I think this is accurate. I regret seemingly falling into the trap of "fake news." The difference with Apple is that it has retail stores that fall within the Eastern District of Texas, so it has an established business presence in that jurisdiction and, by the sounds of it, can be rightfully sued there for alleged patent infringement still.
[doublepost=1495478124][/doublepost]

Nah just seems like y'all didn't actually read and interpret what it meant. You just wanted to put some (in this case, misguided/false) info out to get quick clicks. Typical.

I ensure you that's not the case. I was misguided by the dozen or so credible media publications that positioned this news with the angle that I also did. However, I admit that I failed to "do my homework" in this situation. I strive for factualness and accuracy at all times, so trust me when I say that this disappoints me. MacRumors has never instructed me to write articles in a manner that gets "quick clicks," and it's not something I stand for.

Looks like Judge Troll will be taking a pay cut.

Apple can be sued in Delaware, where it is incorporated, or anywhere else it has a regular place of business and is alleged to infringe. That would include East Texas if it has any offices or stores there.

But, the exact wording is "...or where the defendant has committed acts of infringement AND has a regular and established place of business. " To use a store to meet that requirement would mean that the infringement would have had to take place at the store. Since the only things that transpire at the store are sales and service, if those were infringing acts, than any business that sold and serviced the offending product would be equally liable. That means Best Buy could be sued for patent infringement on the same basis as Apple.

It would seem to me that infringing acts required to qualify a non-HQ site would only entail acts to incorporate the offending technology, such as manufacturing and design.

Apple can be sued in Delaware, where it is incorporated, or anywhere else it has a regular place of business and is alleged to infringe. That would include East Texas if it has any offices or stores there.

So not just Northern California.

The fight was what "resides" means:

28 USC 1400(b):
Any civil action for patent infringement may be brought in the judicial district where the defendant resides, or where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business.

"Resides" now means "where the corporate defendant is incorporated" (e.g. Delaware). The part after the "or" hasn't changed.

Looks like MacRumors might want to update their article..... actually delete it, since this defeats the whole purpose of MR post lol.