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
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
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
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
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
On June 17, 2019, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, in Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Accord Healthcare Inc., et al., No. 18-cv-01043, held that venue was not proper in Delaware over Mylan...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit elected not to decide en banc whether servers or similar equipment in third-party facilities constitute a regular and established place of business under the patent venue...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
The U.S. Supreme Court decided TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC on May 22, 2017, revitalizing the patent venue st atute. This article reviews the impact of TC Heartland over the past year and a half. ...more
The District of Delaware dismissed a Hatch-Waxman Act ANDA lawsuit that Bristol-Myers Squibb had filed against Mylan Pharmaceuticals, finding that under the new venue rules established by the Supreme Court’s TC Heartland...more
The U.S. Supreme Court’s in TC Heartland v. Kraft Food, and subsequently the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in In re Cray Inc., addressed where patent litigation can be filed under the patent venue statute, 28...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
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
The Federal Circuit’s ongoing effort to implement TC Heartland—the Supreme Court’s landmark 2017 patent venue decision—took another step forward in May with In re BigCommerce, Inc., which vacated and remanded two decisions...more
The Federal Circuit issued a trio of decisions this month further clarifying the application of the patent venue statute in the post-TC Heartland era. ...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
This week, the Federal Circuit resolved three issues left in TC Heartland’s wake. TC Heartland held that 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) uniquely governs venue in patent cases and is not coterminous with the scope of § 1391. The first...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
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
Further to our ongoing coverage of the post-TC Heartland patent litigation landscape, a pair of recent and interesting cases from Texas and Delaware further evolved this important venue-related jurisprudence....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
Last Spring, the Supreme Court in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC held that the word "resides" in the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), "refers only to the State of incorporation" of the alleged...more