One of the side effects of this dynamic is that there's less chance for a circuit split if the vast majority are filed in one specific circuit. Which is generally a precondition for Supreme Court cases, and leaves them somewhat helpless to grant cert on cases they'd otherwise prefer to overturn.
> I would expect Delaware courts to will be very defendant-friendly.
Not really a given when you're talking about companies suing companies. In fact the article even mentions a defendant's motion to dismiss was rejected. This suggests the company would have preferred to defend in a different court, perhaps California.
I'm not sure how the rules are established, but I assume it's something along the lines of the Senate rules (ie the filabuster) -- changes are subject to majority consent by vote.
That rule seems to be basically non-binding commentary.
"The following, although neither controlling nor fully measuring the Court's discretion, indicate the character of the reasons the Court considers".
And, in any case, the last possible reason reads:
"(c) a state court or a United States court of appeals has decided an important question of federal law that has not been, but should be, settled by this Court [...]"
What the court considers important is described later on. While the court can't establish any rules it cant later undo, it is a statement from the court and gives us an idea of when and why the accept the petitions they do.
As I understand it, it's _very_ rare to grant cert 'because it's important we do so.' The court accepts something like 1 in 70 petitioned, and a very small number within there are granted under Rule 10(c).
> I would expect Delaware courts to will be very defendant-friendly.
Not really a given when you're talking about companies suing companies. In fact the article even mentions a defendant's motion to dismiss was rejected. This suggests the company would have preferred to defend in a different court, perhaps California.