Court clog is a net benefit – regionally tailored laws prevent disputes in the first place AND litigants can spread out complaints between federal and regional circuits

Faced with the court system's limited ability to engage in legal experimentation due to its centralized nature, Craig Nard and John Duffy have called for the establishment of a polycentric decision-making structure in patent law. It would emphasize the value of competition and diversity in legal systems and offer the potential benefit of such a "moderately decentralized framework," which could allow for incremental innovation and experimentation.2 Echoing this view, Diane P. Wood suggests that perhaps the solution lies in removing the exclusive jurisdiction of the Federal Circuit.232 Under her proposal, litigants would have the option to submit their appeals to the Federal Circuit or proceed with litigation in the regional circuit where their claims were first presented.233 Such an arrangement would grant the Federal Circuit the room to leverage its specialized expertise, yet pave the way for a more expansive evolution of patent law, allowing fresh perspectives to permeate and flourish. 2" This richer jurisprudential landscape would also provide the Supreme Court with a more comprehensive foundation from which to make its decisions. 235 The second limitation is that courts can only the address matters that come before them. Thus, statutory law inherently constrains the range of issues. Furthermore, the cases that enter the litigation process might not cover the entire spectrum of local needs or concerns, whereas local legislation can comprehensively and specifically address a wide range of regional issues. From a timing perspective, courts generally address issues retrospectively, as they respond to disputes that have already arisen, while local legislation can proactively tailor patent laws to meet regional needs and prevent those disputes in the first place. Forward-looking rulings, such as those relating to cutting-edge technologies like artificial intelligence, might be difficult for the court system to generate in a timely manner. Legislation, on the other hand, allows local governments to construct forward-looking rules. One additional point is that litigation costs also influence the scope of issues that courts address. The high cost of litigation restricts the range of legal updates as most issues with low individual economic value will not enter litigation. However, when enough disputes involving low-value issues accumulate so that their collective value becomes significant, the courts might not be able to respond in a timely manner. The third limitation is that legal reforms through the court system can lead to insufficient participation from stakeholders. Local stakeholders, especially those who have not instigated these cases, have limited opportunities to influence judicial interpretation directly. This is because courts base their decisions primarily on the legal arguments that the parties involved in the litigation present. Conversely, stakeholders can offer direct input that helps to shape local legislation, ensuring that patent laws reflect their priorities and needs. Some critics argue that the Federal Circuit's patent jurisprudence has become isolated and disconnected from the technological communities it affects. 236 Comparatively, when local governments have legislative authority, as is the case in China, local citizens can also advocate for legal reforms that are tailored to their specific needs by influencing local legislation through public consultations, 237 expressing views to representatives, 238 and collaborating with NGOs.239 This approach allows for more informed legislation. Moreover, Article 87 of the Legislative Law of China requires local legislators to make drafts public and to solicit the public's opinions.2 " Stakeholders can also influence legislation by providing comments.

State action solves slow litigation --- avoids the net benefit.

Nguyen 10 [Xuan-Thao Nguyen is a professor of law at UW & a senior consultant for the World Bank/IFC on financial infrastructure projects in China, Vietnam, and the Mekong Region.; “Dynamic Federalism and Patent Law Reform”; 2010; https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1061&context=ilj]//aanya

Local patent rules are innovative.166 They control the schedule of litigation and dictate a faster pace. For example, under many local rules, a patent holder asserting patent infringement has a very short time (ten to thirty days after the initial casemanagement conference) to submit its preliminary infringement contentions.167 The preliminary infringement contentions are deemed final and patentees can only amend their contentions without leave of the court within a narrow time frame.168 Likewise, a defendant’s preliminary invalidity contentions are deemed final, and infringement contentions can only be amended with the court’s permission upon a showing of good cause.169 Most local patent rules allow discovery related to the charges and defenses of willful infringement, and they encourage parties to explore the basis for raising claims shortly after the scheduling order.170 To minimize unnecessary battles over protective orders, some local patent rules have a default protective order. The default protective order is automatically entered upon the filing of a patent suit.171 Having default protective orders shortens the time required to reach a protective order suitable to both parties.172 Another feature of many local patent rules is their swift timetable for claim construction. Several districts’ local patent rules allow only twenty days for the parties to exchange preliminary construction for each claim term identified, and each party must disclose extrinsic evidence to support their claim construction.173 Again, the quick timetable forces the litigants to plan, manage, and control the litigation to meet the deadline.174 Together, these rules prevent the parties from prolonging litigation with acrimonious procedural tactics. Indeed, a typical patent case takes approximately three to five years from filing to disposition. However, the time can be reduced to eighteen months, as shown by the district courts that have adopted and enforced local patent rules to resolve patent disputes with rapid speed.175 The local-patent-rules movement has been widespread. In 2000, the Northern District of California was the first to formulate and adopt local patent rules.176 Nine years later, the Southern District of Ohio,177 the District of Minnesota,178 the District of Massachusetts,179 the Northern District of Illinois,180 the Eastern District of North Carolina,181 the District of New Jersey,182 the Northern District of Georgia,183 the Southern District of Texas,184 the Eastern District of Texas,185 the Western District of Washington,186 the Western District of Pennsylvania,187 and the Southern District of California188 have all adopted their own versions of local patent rules or developed patent-specific rules within their existing local rules.189 The Northern District of Texas has adopted patent rules in a standing order.190 In some districts, such as the Southern District of New York, local patent rules have not been adopted for the entire district; however, individual judges may adopt the recommended set of local patent rules on a voluntary basis.191 Overall, the movement in creating and adopting local patent rules has had positive effects on judges sitting in districts with no local patent rules. Some judges have observed the benefits of the rules and decided to use some of the rules to manage their court’s ongoing patent dockets. For example, in Suncast Technologies v. Patrician Products, 192 the Southern District of Florida reviewed local patent rules from a number of districts and found that the rules “provide instructive insight into identifying proper topics of discovery unique to a patent suit,”193 which assisted the court to adopt “the correct sequencing” of patent discovery.