Would such a move be enough to not be under the jurisdiction of the Eastern District? Google doesn't have any store there yet that doesn't stop any patent troll.
The following is an excerpt from the short article you're commenting on:
>Residency is also a factor in determining the applicable venue of a patent infringement lawsuit, but in May 2017, the Supreme Court shifted precedent by ruling that a U.S. corporation resides only in its state of incorporation. Apple is incorporated in California, not Texas, satisfying this clause.
>The plans are significant, as U.S. law states that patent infringement lawsuits may be filed "where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business." By closing its stores in Eastern Texas, Apple is ending its established place of business in the district.
Moving a store from one district of Texas to another obviously doesn't relate to the question of the state of incorporation/residency.
IANAL, I can only go by what the article is saying. The article explicitly says "a U.S. corporation resides only in its state of incorporation".
"Residency" in this sense is evidently not the same as "having an established place of business". Apple is avoiding having an "established place of business" in the eastern district.
"Despite the limitations imposed by TC Heartland, § 1400(b) offers an alternative path to a desired district “where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business.” Merely months after TC Heartland, which did not address this alternative, the Federal Circuit in In re Cray[3] rejected the Eastern District of Texas’ expansive four-factor test and set forth three requirements for determining whether a defendant has a “regular and established place of business” in the district: (1) there must be a physical place in the district; (2) it must be regular and established; and (3) it must be the place of the defendant."
"Despite the limitations imposed by TC Heartland, § 1400(b) offers an alternative path to a desired district “where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business.” Merely months after TC Heartland, which did not address this alternative, the Federal Circuit in In re Cray[3] rejected the Eastern District of Texas’ expansive four-factor test and set forth three requirements for determining whether a defendant has a “regular and established place of business” in the district: (1) there must be a physical place in the district; (2) it must be regular and established; and (3) it must be the place of the defendant."
Google's army of lawyers and cash reserves keeps patent trolls away. Pt try to go after little and medium companies who don't have the time or resources to fight back. It's way cheaper to write a check and make the problem go away, rather than fight via expensive lawyers or getting audited before the shakedown.
Apple has larger cash reserves than Google. Also Google has spent years buying companies for their patent portfolios to help prevent patent trolls. But also many tech companies are joining groups like LOT Net to help stop this as well.
>Residency is also a factor in determining the applicable venue of a patent infringement lawsuit, but in May 2017, the Supreme Court shifted precedent by ruling that a U.S. corporation resides only in its state of incorporation. Apple is incorporated in California, not Texas, satisfying this clause.