Toyota has been at the forefront of bringing us high gas mileage cars that you actually want to drive.   Toyota's hybrids have been very popular and the Camry is viewed by many as the best mid-sized car in the world.  Now the Camry Hybrid is at the center of a new patent infringement suit.

Paice, LLC has sued Toyota claiming that the Camry Hybrid infringes a patent it received back in 1994.  Last year Paice won a $4.2 million verdict against Toyota for the Prius, Highlander and the Lexus RX400h.   Apparently still hungry, Paice is lining up to take some more of Toyota's money. 

The case is a good example of what is commonly called forum shopping.  Paice, LLC is a Delaware corporation with a principle place of business in Florida.  The Toyota Defendants are Japanese and Delaware corporations with principle places of business in Japan, California and New York.  So what is the case doing in the Eastern District of Texas?   The Eastern District of Texas is known as being very patent friendly.  Thus, Paice is apparently willing to forgo the advantage of suing in its home state to get what it apparently views as the more patent friendly courts in Texas.

It often makes sense for a Plaintiff to sue a Defendant in a neutral state.  Suing the Defendant in its home state creates a greater cost for the Plaintiff (its regular attorneys and a firm where the suit is filed).  It also raises the concern of potential jury bias.  Will the jury favor the defendant - i.e. local jobs.  (Being on the wrong side of this is known as being "homered").

By filing in a neutral state, the Defendant will have to hire a local firm as well, equalizing the cost.  It is also less likely that the jury will be biased toward the Defendant.  Thus, if a Plaintiff cannot sue in its home state, a neutral state is usually preferred.

The odd thing with Paice v. Toyota is that the Plaintiff could have brought the suit in Florida.  Certainly, Toyota sells the Camry Hybrid in Florida.  Thus, the only reasonable explanation for suing in the Eastern District of Texas is that the courts are faster and/or more patent friendly.

One question for policy makers is whether this type of forum shopping should be allowed.  If the Plaintiff could bring the case in their home state and there is not a compelling reason (i.e. the existence of an infringing device which is too big to move) to bring the case in a district in which one of the party's is based, should the Plaintiff be required to sue in its home state or that of the Defendant?   The Supreme Court's recent decision muddying the method for determining obviousness is likely to increase forum shopping.  The legal business in the Eastern District of Texas will boom with patent plaintiffs, while potential defendants will file declaratory judgment actions in other jurisdictions to avoid going to Texas.

Well, got to go.  I need to open a branch office in Texarkana.