Some background points:<p>1. If a patent owner creates an actual "case or controversy," for example by making an accusation of infringement, then the target of the accusation doesn't need to sit around wondering when and where it will be sued. It can instead file its own lawsuit asking for a declaratory judgment. This is what the NY Times has done.<p>2. Tactically, Lodsys might file a motion to transfer the case on grounds that key witnesses and/or documents would be more conveniently available in another court, so much so that it should override the NY Times's right to choose its forum. (Choosing to sue in the home jurisdiction of Lodsys's CEO was an intriguing move.)<p>3. In many cases, the patent owner will try to have a "D-J" (declaratory judgment) case thrown out, on grounds that supposedly there's no <i>actual</i> case or controversy because there hasn't been an accusation of infringement. That seems unlikely here, because the NY Times's complaint quotes the Lodsys letter as pretty clearly accusing the Times of infringement (see paragraph 13).<p>4. The Eastern District of Texas is indeed favored by "NPEs" (aka trolls), but in part because a couple of the judges there are experienced in patent cases and run a tight ship. As far as patent-owner win rate, there's been at least some research suggesting that the Eastern District isn't even in the top 5. [1]<p>[1] See the Lemley article linked and discussed at <a href="http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2010/05/patent-litigation-forum-shopping.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.patentlyo.com/patent/2010/05/patent-litigation-fo...</a>
I have a question..<p>Out of all the websites with supposed infringement, Best Buy, etc why no targeting of Microsoft?<p>Given IV's history it does cause some wonder