An 8-0 Decision by the U.S. Supreme Court in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods Limits Venue Shopping in Patent Suits

Pillsbury - Internet & Social Media Law Blog
Contact

Today, May 22, 2017, in the TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods opinion written by Justice Clarence Thomas, the U.S. Supreme Court held that the proper venue for a patent infringement lawsuit is (1) the state of incorporation for the defendant, or (2) a district where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business. The Court held that for purposes of the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. §1400(b), a domestic corporation “resides” only in its State of incorporation, rejecting the argument that §1400(b) incorporates the broader definition of corporate “residence” contained in the general venue statute, 28 U.S.C. §1391(c).

The TC Heartland ruling will limit the ability of patent owners to venue shop and bring cases in what are perceived as patent-friendly jurisdictions like the Eastern District of Texas. For example, the May 2016 PricewaterhouseCoopers Patent Litigation Study, indicates that plaintiffs had a higher percentage of success in the Eastern District of Texas (54%) compared to other venues (e.g., District of Delaware – 40%). These perceptions helped drive patent infringement lawsuit filings: in 2016 more than 1,600 new patent cases were filed in the Eastern District of Texas. The next busiest district, the District of Delaware, had less than 500 new patent cases filed.

After TC Heartland, several districts should see an uptick in new patent infringement suits: (1) the District of Delaware because many technology companies, including those related to social media and the internet, incorporate in Delaware; and (2) other districts where technology companies have an established place of business, e.g., the Northern, Central and Southern districts of California, and the Northern and Western districts of Texas. And for cases pending in the Eastern District of Texas, expect to see a flood of motions to dismiss or transfer brought under 28 U.S.C. § 1406 in the weeks ahead. (A more detailed exploration of this topic is available here by Professor Paul M. Janicke of the University of Houston Law Center.)

 

DISCLAIMER: Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations.

© Pillsbury - Internet & Social Media Law Blog | Attorney Advertising

Written by:

Pillsbury - Internet & Social Media Law Blog
Contact
more
less

Pillsbury - Internet & Social Media Law Blog on:

Reporters on Deadline

"My best business intelligence, in one easy email…"

Your first step to building a free, personalized, morning email brief covering pertinent authors and topics on JD Supra:
*By using the service, you signify your acceptance of JD Supra's Privacy Policy.
Custom Email Digest
- hide
- hide

This website uses cookies to improve user experience, track anonymous site usage, store authorization tokens and permit sharing on social media networks. By continuing to browse this website you accept the use of cookies. Click here to read more about how we use cookies.