Think
Forward

In The Media
IPWatchdog Quotes Brinks Attorney Stephen Leahu
Published By IPWatchdog
October 10, 2018

On October 10, 2018, Stephen Leahu was quoted in the IPWatchdog article, "Patent Infringement Lawsuit Against Comcast Highlights Attractiveness of Middle District of Florida for Patent Plaintiffs."

Excerpt below. Click here to read the full article.

On August 1st, Fort Myers, FL-based over-the-top (OTT) Internet television provider WhereverTV filed a suit alleging patent infringement against Philadephia, PA-based telecommunications conglomerate Comcast Corporation. Despite the fact that Comcast is headquartered in Pennsylvania and the inventor listed on WhereverTV’s patent resides in Pennsylvania, the complaint was filed in the Middle District of Florida, a district which has been growing more attractive for parties filing patent infringement suits.

. . . .

WhereverTV’s complaint argues that the Middle District of Florida has personal jurisdiction over all the defendants, including the Pennsylvania-based Comcast, in large part because defendants do business at an Xfinity retail store located in Fort Myers, FL. Although Middle Florida doesn’t have local rules specific to patent cases such as exist in other districts, there are a few reasons why this particular district would be attractive to patent infringement plaintiffs, according to Stephen Leahu, an attorney at Brinks Gilson & Lione. Citing to the 2018 Patent Litigation Study released this May by PricewaterhouseCoopers, Leahu noted that Middle Florida was ranked as the 5th-most popular venue for patent litigation, a slight uptick from the district’s 2017 ranking as the 6th-most popular venue. Middle Florida is also ranked 3rd for overall plaintiff success rate at 49 percent and third for having a 1.9-year median time-to-trial. “The district is highly ranked in some very important categories for plaintiffs who want to get a trial resolution as soon as possible as well as a high success rate,” Leahu said. He added that Middle Florida judges are able to achieve a relatively quick time-to-trial despite having a caseload of about 600 cases per judge, about twice the average caseload for federal judges.

Click here to read the full article.

前瞻性思维者
RELATED PRACTICE GROUPS