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]
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
If your limited attention is diverted this week because of March Madness, never fear! We’ve got you covered at Federal Circuitry, where we’re always tracking the latest news at the Federal Circuit. Below we provide our usual...more
Case Name: Celgene Corp. v. Mylan Pharms., Inc., No. 2021-1154, 2021 WL 5143311 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 5, 2021) (Circuit Judges Prost, Chen, and Hughes presiding; Opinion by Prost, J.) (Appeal from D.N.J., Salas, J.) Drug Product...more
The question of the proper court for a branded pharmaceutical maker to bring suit against an Abbreviated New Drug Application filer under the Hatch-Waxman Act is surprisingly unsettled seeing as the Act was enacted in 1984. ...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
In Re: Juniper Networks, Inc. Before Lourie, Bryson, and Taranto. Per Curiam. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas. Summary: A party’s relatively...more
Current U.S. bankruptcy law gives companies wide discretion to file a bankruptcy in the venue of their choice. A company can file for bankruptcy in any federal district where it has its “domicile, residence, principal place...more
The Federal Circuit wrapped up another (perhaps final) week of telephone arguments last week. As of now, the Court is still set to restart in-person arguments next month. But we’ll have to see if those plans change. Below we...more
Andra Group, LP v. Victoria’s Secret Stores, L.L.C. Before Reyna, Mayer, and Hughes. Appeal from the District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. An entity’s physical presence in a jurisdiction does not automatically...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
With Hangey v. Husqvarna Prof'l Prods., 2021 PA Super 37, the Pennsylvania Superior Court handed down an en banc decision which will significantly shift the focus of how venue challenges are decided. When a corporate...more
Since the Supreme Court’s ruling in TC Heartland, there has been increased litigation over appropriate venue in patent litigation, including Hatch-Waxman cases. 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) provides that venue in patent infringement...more
Venue in patent cases has been a topic of recent Supreme Court (TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC) and Federal Circuit (In re Cray) consideration. Last month, the Federal Circuit again considered venue with...more
In Valeant Pharmaceuticals North America LLC v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., No. 2019-2402 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 5, 2020), the Federal Circuit clarified the venue analysis of 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), which controls venue for patent...more
On November 5, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in Valeant Pharmaceuticals N. Am. LLC v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., No. 19-2402, resolved a split among district courts over what constitutes...more
Last week was argument week at the Federal Circuit, which as usual meant the Court issued several Rule 36 affirmances and short non-precedential decisions. But tucked in between those was at least one case—a Hatch-Waxman...more
Somewhat remarkably, there is no settled Federal Circuit precedent regarding where a patentee can bring suit against a generic competitor in Hatch-Waxman litigation under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2). While recognizing that this...more
The Federal Circuit Thursday issued a decision that narrows the venue options available to patent owners bringing suit against generic drug manufacturers under the Hatch-Waxman Act. In a unanimous decision, the court held...more
Nearly three years after the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Food Brands LLC,1 both parties and courts continue to grapple with what it means for a defendant to have a regular and established place...more
PTAB May Not Cancel Claims on the Grounds of Indefiniteness in an IPR Proceeding - In Samsung Electronics America v. Prisua Engineering Corp., Appeal No. 19-1169, the Federal Circuit held that the Patent Trial and Appeal...more
It has become commonplace for companies such as Google to use local servers to provide faster service to customers. This practice has raised the question as to whether those local servers constitute “a regular and...more
In a welcome ruling for internet companies undergoing patent infringement suits, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit weighed in regarding what it means to have a “regular and established place of business” under...more
On February 13, 2020, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed the Eastern District of Texas’ ruling that venue was proper in In re Google, 2019-126, halting for now the line of precedent finding that...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has now held that a “place of business” for purposes of the patent venue statute requires an employee or agent of the defendant to be conducting business at that place. In light...more
IN RE: GOOGLE LLC - Before Dyk, Wallach, and Taranto. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Summary: A defendant does not have a “regular and established place of...more