Law School Toolbox Podcast Episode 343: Listen and Learn -- Personal Jurisdiction (Civ Pro)
Bar Exam Toolbox Podcast Episode 169: Listen and Learn -- Personal Jurisdiction (Civ Pro)
Redefining Personal Jurisdiction: SCOTUS rules on the Ford Cases [More with McGlinchey Ep. 19]
Personal Jurisdiction Part 3 – Oral Arguments in the Ford Cases [More with McGlinchey Ep. 12]
Personal Jurisdiction Part 2: The Ford Cases [More With McGlinchey Ep. 8]
Personal Jurisdiction: Not what you learned in law school [More with McGlinchey Ep. 4]
The Federal Circuit has further narrowed the scope of patent venue statute in In re Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., holding that the requisite control a defendant must exercise over an in-district agent to establish patent...more
Venue, in the context of the federal law, refers to the judicial district in which a case can be heard. Venue must be established for each cause of action in a case. In most federal civil litigation, proper venue is...more
The patent landscape experienced a paradigm shift with the May 2017 United States Supreme Court decision in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods Group Brands. In TC Heartland, venue in patent cases was narrowed to either (1) the...more
A recent order from the Northern District of California in AU Optronics Corporation America v. Vista Peak Ventures, LLC, 4:18-cv-04638 (CAND 2019-02-19) (“AU Optronics”), provides further guidance for patent venue analysis...more
Under the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), a patent suit may be brought in a “judicial district where the defendant resides, or where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and...more
According to the Eastern District of Texas, no. In our continued post-TC Heartland coverage, for the purpose of establishing venue, courts typically will decline to treat the place of business of one corporation as the place...more
It’s been one year since the TC Heartland decision was issued by the Supreme Court, and it’s had a big impact on patent litigation. See TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Food Brands LLC, 137 S. Ct. 1514, 1521 (May 22, 2017)....more
In our continuing coverage of the post-TC Heartland landscape, the Federal Circuit recently clarified that venue is proper in only one district per state in In re BigCommerce, Inc., 2018-122 (Fed. Cir. May 15, 2018) (slip...more
Further to our ongoing coverage of post-TC Heartland patent litigation, in a recent case in the Western District of Wisconsin, the court granted defendants’ motion to transfer for improper venue. In doing so, it rejected the...more
The Federal Circuit today in In re HTC Corp., Misc. 2018-130 (May 5, 2018), followed the holding of the Supreme Court in Brunette Machine Works, Ltd. v. Kockum Industries, Inc., 406 U.S. 706 (1972), that venue is proper as to...more
For decades, it was well-established that defendants in patent cases could be sued almost anywhere they were subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction. ...more
Further to our ongoing coverage of post-TC Heartland patent litigation, in a recent development from the Northern District of Illinois, the court granted counterclaim defendants’ motion to dismiss for improper venue. In Shure...more
The U.S. Supreme Court’s May 22, 2017 ruling in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods held that personal jurisdiction alone does not convey venue for patent cases under the patent venue statute. Previously, the Court of Appeals for the...more
In 2017, the Supreme Court rejected the Federal Circuit’s longstanding interpretation of Personal Jurisdiction and Venue in patent infringement actions against domestic companies. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391, 1400; see TC Heartland LLC...more
Addressing a motion to dismiss for improper venue following TC Heartland, a Delaware district court held that an abbreviated new drug application (ANDA) filer that intends to market an allegedly infringing drug in a certain...more
The Supreme Court’s TC Heartland decision in May set off a tidal wave that completely reshaped the contours of patent venue law. Riding its wake, defendants around the country presented venue objections under 28 U.S.C. §...more
In remanding a case back to the district court, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the Supreme Court of the United States’ 2017 decision in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods qualifies as a change of law, and...more
The Supreme Court recently upended what many practitioners considered to be the status quo on the issue of where venue lies in patent infringement actions. These cases have a special governing provision in 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b)...more
The venue of a lawsuit can be a crucial, even dispositive, decision in managing the strategy of a successful outcome in an IP dispute. Defending a lawsuit on your home turf is often easier than in a distant state – defendants...more
This post summarizes some of the significant developments in the Eastern District of Texas and the Northern District of Texas for the month of November 2017. This post will focus on how the Eastern District of Texas continues...more
The U.S. Supreme Court’s May 22, 2017 ruling in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods held that personal jurisdiction alone does not convey venue for patent cases under the patent venue statute. Previously, the Court of Appeals for...more
For years, patent assertion entities have filed patent lawsuits against retailers in federal court in Texas. The Supreme Court’s recent decision in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC may give retailers the...more
The Federal Circuit issued guidance yesterday for district courts deciding venue challenges after the Supreme Court’s May 2017 decision in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC. In In re Micron Technology, Inc.,...more
In Micron Technology, the Federal Circuit resolved widespread disagreement about TC Heartland and motions to transfer venue in patent cases. The Federal Circuit held that TC Heartland changed controlling law and, thus, that...more
The court offers clarification on a patent litigation venue issue that has caused “widespread disagreement” nationwide....more