Here are a few stories and announcements from the Chicago IP world:

• Hinshaw & Culbertson LLP has launched a new blog:  Practical Ediscovery.  The blog is written by a team of the firm’s attorney and focuses on practical considerations and approaches for handling issues arising with the production of electronically stored information. Check out Evan Brown’s first post here.
• Anne Reed has a post that every patent litigator should read at Deliberations — click here to read it.  Reed looked at the issue of how and when to introduce technical jargon to juries.  Reed makes to important points:  1) trust juror’ intelligence, people like to learn; and 2) despite that, do not teach the jargon both unless and until it is relevant to the jury.

• There is an interesting new paper out arguing for a revised venue statute by Sidney Rosenzweig, a visiting fellow at the Progress and Freedom Foundation.  Rosenzweig argues for the following rewording of the venue statute:*

  Notwithstanding subsection 1391(c) of this title, any civil action for patent infringement may be brought against a corporation only in a judicial district:

  (1) where the defendant has its principal place of business or where the defendant is incorporated;

  (2) where the defendant has committed a substantial portion of the acts of infringement and has a regular and established physical facility that it controls;

  (3) where any defendant has committed a substantial portion of the acts of infringement and has a regular and established physical facility that it controls, if there is no other district in which the action may be brought under subsections (1) or (2); or

  (4) where any defendant has its principal place of business, where any defendant is incorporated, where any defendant may be found, or where any defendant has committed acts of infringement, if there is no other district in which the action may be brought under subsections (1), (2) or (3).

*  Click here to read the report.  And a hat tip to Peter Zura for identifying the paper.