Alright, I'll bite. Your opinion and perspective is one that you don't support with actual evidence, just a claim - "judges are acrimonious to patent cases". Actually, the evidence you do cite is an "IP advocacy group" that basically appears to be one attorney who has practiced patent law his career, who posts some stats that show, shockingly enough, that court cases went down about 20% at the start of COVID, and decides that that's proof that patentholders are frustrated with the bench.

But even he contradicts you:

> The precipitous decline in patent cases commenced beginning in 2016 is likely due to a capitulation by many patent owners who finally started to come to terms with the fact that many legacy patents were simply not going to survive the Federal Circuit’s restrictive interpretation of the Alice/Mayo framework regarding patent eligibility.

That doesn't sound like "judges hate patent law".

> Also, this is easily inferred by the fact that many litigants, including defendants, are happy to stay in those two districts.

You realize that, actually, many defendants are NOT happy to stay in those districts, and that that district routinely denies motions to change venue, motions which are repeatedly successfully challenged in Federal Circuit:

> The decision (In re Fedex Corporate Services (In re Fedex), No. 2022-156, slip op. at 9 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 19, 2022)) is the next in an increasingly long line of mandamus decisions in which the Federal Circuit has reversed or remanded decisions from Texas district courts on this issue, and suggests that the Federal Circuit will continue to carefully scrutinize these decisions on transfer motions going forward.

> Sometimes these defendants win their transfer motions, sometimes they lose.

In fact, overwhelmingly, they lose. Since 2017, over 350 motions to transfer venue, based on the plaintiff not being able to show a presence in the Eastern District were filed, motions which were denied 92% of the time by a single judge.

> Out-of-town companies began renting empty offices, in the hopes of appearing to have East Texas ties.

Source: https://www.dallasnews.com/business/technology/2017/05/23/ho...
suits-shaped-a-small-east-texas-town-before-supreme-court-s-ruling/

Businesses knew this was problematic, so were doing things like this.

The thing is, at this point, your contention that there is nothing wrong with how the Eastern District operates - a contention that is not tenable with multiple investigations that have resulted in multiple changes to how the District handles patent cases, and dozens of explorations.

> Academic literature has generally adopted a dim view of granting
plaintiffs the ability to select their judge. The legal system apparently
shares the same disdain; there are many examples of attorneys being
sanctioned because their actions were construed as an attempt to
manipulate the system to receive a more favorable judge. Previous
scholarship discusses the perniciousness of judge shopping for the legal
system and argues that judge shopping is one of the advantages that courts
can dangle before potential plaintiffs in an effort to compete for their
litigation business.

> https://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/facsch_lawrev/489/

> Generally in my experience, the defendants that want to leave those districts are usually the largest tech companies who seek to move the case to their more-friendly local districts, which is just another form of judge shopping.

That depends. It can be, certainly - and that is equally problematic. But if it's to get the case in a district that has a nexus for at least one of the two entities (i.e. not an empty office rented by the plaintiff a week before they filed suit), then I don't see it problematic.

> In 2019 a federal judge named Alan Albright gave a presentation to a group of lawyers. His courthouse in Waco, Texas, where he is the only judge, sits near a sweet shop. The talk was called “Why You Should File Your Next Patent Case Across the Street from the ‘Hey Sugar’”.

> The intellectual-property lawyers who heard his pitch were apparently persuaded. Less than two years after being appointed to the bench, Judge Albright had nearly 20% of the country’s patent cases, according to Lex Machina, a legal-analytics firm. By 2021, he had 23%.

Source: https://www.economist.com/united-states/2024/04/16/how-two-s...

A judge, any judge, should not be holding presentations to lawyers about "why you should bring your cases to me". Especially when those lawyers are exclusively IP litigants.

> It's certainly fallacious to say that all the cases brought in those districts are by trolls

I agree. Which is why I never said that, or hinted at that.

> Do you have any argument as to why a motion to dismiss should be heard before a markman hearing occurs? That'd be substantive.

I would want further information. I've never seen anything substantive that claims that such procedural matters are the chief concern of people who have an issue with the Eastern District. Usually, it's things like the above.

> This should be easy for you to answer given the numerous articles you've read about the "interventions" made.

I have responded to your comments with objectivity, and not felt a need to resort to sneering and snark.