Plaintiff attorneys don't want a competent judge, they simply want to win. An incompetent judge is fine if the incompetence is to their benefit.
What I wrote earlier, that plaintiffs choose which district to sue under, so they pick the district that they feel will have the strongest likelihood of ruling in their favor-- should not be controversial. This is Law school 101 type stuff.
I believe you when you say you are a patent attorney, but I also fear you are posting misinformation here.
I believe a competent law professor would talk about "plaintiff friendly" courts and what you've posted here, about "respected" judges, suggests you are an untrustworthy poster.
It’s funny that you call it law school 101 stuff, because your analysis (and tone) is indeed about what I’d expect from a 1L.
Judge Albright’s record does not show him to be patent-troll-friendly, or even patentee-friendly. It shows him to be smart, knowledgeable, and principled. His is exactly the kind of court a plaintiff or a defendant should be happy to be in. Efficiency in disposing of cases cuts both ways, you know.
Your job as an attorney is to serve your client, not the truth. A law school professor would seem to have no such incentive to deceive people- so I would not trust a word you've written here over the linked paper by the law professors.
