It's the judges and the court - somehow a mindset has developed there which is at odds with most other patent cases in the US. This is a part of the country which has very little, so big corporations fighting patent cases bring a lot of money into the area and prestige to a court which otherwise would be in a backwater. It's a federal court, so the same laws apply as anywhere else, but there's enough wiggle room in the way those laws are written to allow this kind of "bad faith" interpretation. The solution is for congress to tighten up the laws, but that won't happen anytime soon.
The idea isn't just that a win there will discourage an appeal, but that the court will hear cases that most other courts would dismiss out of hand based on obvious prior art, vague claims, or USPTO investigation results. So the defendant is tied up in a court case, which includes an expensive jury trial. Worse still, the jury is so biased that they're all but guaranteed to loose the case. Most savvy defendents would choose to settle in that situation - which is all the patent-holder actually wants.
> somehow a mindset has developed there which is at odds with most other patent cases in the US.
Different courts form slightly different interpretations. There's a reason that the 2nd Circuit is the most liberal court. This court happens to be the most pro-plaintiff patent court you can find. It's not surprising the plaintiffs file there.
> This is a part of the country which has very little
Have you ever been there?
> so big corporations fighting patent cases bring a lot of money into the area and prestige to a court which otherwise would be in a backwater.
Do you think Apple fighting a court case floods money down the street like a river?
> the jury is so biased
Make whatever claims you want about the court, but if as you claim this area is a backwater with nothing going for it, how exactly is the local populace educated enough about the finer points of patent litigation to be biased?
This is a stupid decision but the mental gymnastics you're going through to try to make it fault of the area is impressive.
>Do you think Apple fighting a court case floods money down the street like a river?
Yes. Lawyers have to eat, and they get paid enough to eat well. They need a place to stay, and they get paid enough to stay at a nice hotel. They need coffee, they need an airport, they need a rental car that needs gas. Your argument is that having people come to your city doesn't add to the local economy, but the fact that whole cities are built on tourism proves otherwise.
It's more than that. I used to work at company that turned patent troll. They actually paid "folks on the ground" who essentially lived there (part of that may have been pure corruption with campaign funds sent to judges re-election campaigns).
And that was a small company. Multiply that by 1000x and then add the defense payoffs from big corps...
The thing is that East Texas no longer has a monopoly on this - more jurisdictions are opening up to handling patent litigation (not sure what's driving that).
Although I think this kind of story is plausible in general, it may be worth pointing out that Federal judges, who hear patent cases, are always appointed (at a national level) and never elected, unlike local judges. So they don't have election campaigns to contribute to.
Samsung built an ICE RINK right next to the courthouse. They did that because they thought pouring money into town would help sway the jury pool in their favor.
The idea isn't just that a win there will discourage an appeal, but that the court will hear cases that most other courts would dismiss out of hand based on obvious prior art, vague claims, or USPTO investigation results. So the defendant is tied up in a court case, which includes an expensive jury trial. Worse still, the jury is so biased that they're all but guaranteed to loose the case. Most savvy defendents would choose to settle in that situation - which is all the patent-holder actually wants.