Supreme Court closes court-shopping loophole for patent trolls

That only work if they are incorporated in Delaware.

No. The "place of incorporation" thing in today's judgement applies where there is such a thing. Specifically, per the judgment:

<Begin Court>

As applied to domestic corporations, “reside[nce]” in §1400(b) refers only to the State of incorporation.

<End Court>

In a nutshell, the Court decided that the "ambiguity" in section 1400(b) (which might be read as permitting one to file either in the state of incorporation OR in any state where they have a substantial presence) should actually be read as a hierarchy: file in the state of incorporation unless there isn't one, in which case any state where they have a presence.

This raises a good point. Since those companies can still be sued in the U.S., any foreign country wishing to export its products to the U.S. will still have to run the East Texas gauntlet. Soon, Americans will have to buy smartphones, laptops, and other high-tech gear that is made in America only! So Donald Trump will be able to say that he has created a huge number of jobs in America.

It's not really that big of a deal, because the infringed-upon have a much lower burden in any patent action, because their claims are in the patent. So discovery motions in an patent infringement are almost always targeted at the alleged infringer/defendant, not the plaintiff.

And if you are suing for patent infringement, you are going to be using a specialist legal team, who probably aren't local to you anyway, regardless of where you are located.

(E.g. the largest IP fight I was involved in was fought in a court in Salt Lake City, Utah, used San Francisco, CA attorneys, and the company's operational HQ was 400 miles south of their in Southern California.)

Re: Simpler answer

Incorrect, do not have a headquarters or be incorporated in eastern Texas.

Re: Simpler answer

But isn't the third largest city in the US in Eastern Texas? Along with about one half of the country's energy sector? I don't think companies who are selling tech products to businesses could possibly afford to disregard the Houston market.

Re: Note the vote 0-8

An international company with no US presence couldn't be sued in the US due to lack of jurisdiction. Those kinds of cases usually go before the international trade courts which are a special case. Besides, isn't it normal for a company doing business in the US to have some sort of US presence for legal reasons?

Re: Look out Delaware!

I can't think of a single large tech company incorporated in Delaware.

A lot of those friendly Delaware rules are useful for small to mid size businesses in my limited experience. For large corporations, I believe it's usually advantageous to be incorporated closer to home.

Re: Let the down votes begin - US 4489303 A

Another obvious idea that should never have been granted a patent. A Hall Effect device behaves like a potentiometer, replacing microswitches or pots with Hall switches is equivalent to adding "on a computer".

I think you are making the argument as to why the system needs to be reformed.

When I applied for a US patent it was on the basis of several man years of metallurgical and electrical research by a team of people, hundreds of thousands of dollars of investment, and evidence that other people in the past had said "can't be done". Not an idea that someone with an electronic parts catalog and a joystick couldn't come up with in ten minutes.