Coverage Litigation Leapfrog: Why Venue Matters and How to Avoid Pre-emptive Strike Actions
Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 267: Listen and Learn -- UCC 2-207 ("The Battle of the Forms")
Podcast: IP Life Sciences Landscape: Aiding Orange and Purple Book Patent Owners in Developing PTAB Survival Skills
Meritas Capability Webinar - Controlling Where to Fight and Who Pays for it?
Where the Operative Facts Occurred - In assessing this primary factor, courts have looked to the location of defendant’s principal place of business, where the ANDA application was prepared, and where the ANDA product was...more
A long line of cases in the EDVA demonstrates that defendants seeking to transfer venue out of the EDVA under 28 U.S.C. 1404(a) face an uphill climb if the plaintiff is a Virginia resident....more
A federal appellate court held that a forum selection clause requiring litigation to be in the jurisdiction where the franchisor’s principal place of business was located when the action was brought is enforceable. A...more
The common train of thought when litigating as an out-of-state defendant is that it is best to be venued in federal court so as to eliminate any advantage an in-state plaintiff might have with a local jury. Typically, foreign...more
A California court ruled that a forum selection provision in a Delaware company’s registration statement requiring that certain securities litigation be brought solely in federal court was enforceable. Wong v. Restoration...more
A forum selection clause is often included in an agreement in order to specify where any later dispute regarding the agreement must be litigated. In a recent decision, a federal magistrate judge in Ohio denied a defendant’s...more
In our continuing post-TC Heartland coverage, the District of Nevada recently identified a key factor in analyzing venue challenges in patent litigation: whether the public can access the defendant corporation or its services...more
Until the U.S. Supreme Court’s May 22, 2017 ruling in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the United States district courts had interpreted the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C....more
The DTSA After One Year: Has the Federal Trade Secrets Law Met Expectations? - On May 11, 2017, the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) – the law that created a Federal cause of action for trade secret misappropriation –...more
This timely webinar will provide insight for business leaders and legal counsel on the implications of the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, which has reshaped procedural...more
Last week, Judge Nelson of the District of Minnesota decided that further briefing on venue in The Valspar Corp. et al. v. PPG Industries, Inc. was appropriate given the recent TC Heartland decision by the Supreme Court. This...more
In TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, the U.S. Supreme Court resolved where a domestic corporation "resides" for purposes of the patent venue statute. The Court narrowed the meaning of "resides" under 28 U.S.C....more
In TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, No. 16-341, 581 U.S. __ (2017), the Supreme Court reversed a Federal Circuit decision and clarified the proper scope of venue pursuant to the patent venue statute, 28...more
In a highly anticipated opinion significantly narrowing the first prong of the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), the Supreme Court in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC unanimously held that a domestic...more
The Supreme Court’s decision in TC Heartland will undoubtedly have a substantial impact on patent venue selection and will likely lead to a marked decrease in cases brought in the Eastern District of Texas. Under the Supreme...more
We are pleased to share with you the inaugural issue of Insights: The Delaware Edition, a periodic publication addressing significant Delaware deal litigation and corporation law developments. In This Issue: - Q&A...more
What is the most significant recent development in Delaware, from a litigation standpoint? While there have been a number of important cases and statutory developments, an often-overlooked and extremely important recent...more
The action was based on alleged infringement of one network routing technology patent owned by Internap and potential infringement of a second patent. Both plaintiff and defendant are Delaware corporations with offices in...more
Plaintiff is a Delaware corporation with principal place of business in California at the time the complaint was filed. Its current address is in New York. Defendant is an Ohio LLC with its principal place of business in...more