In TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, No. 16-341 (2017), the Supreme Court upended troublesome and long-standing forum-shopping practices in patent litigation, not to mention the infamous cottage industry of Marshall, Texas, home to more than one-third of all patent cases filed last year. Reversing and remanding a U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision upholding venue over an Indiana corporation in Delaware, the Court held that a domestic corporation "resides" for venue purposes in patent litigation only in its state of incorporation. Though Justice Gorsuch took no part in the decision, which was argued before he joined the Court, Justice Thomas, writing for an otherwise unanimous Court, asserted that the Federal Circuit had been wrong in 1990 to deviate from earlier Supreme Court precedent, holding that the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), provides the exclusive basis for venue in patent litigation, not the more liberal provisions of the general venue statute, § 1391(c), that federal courts had applied for the better part of three decades.
Under § 1400(b), "[a]ny civil action for patent infringement may be brought in the judicial district where the defendant resides, or where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business." The Court had decided in Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Products Corp., 353 U. S. 222 (1957), that a corporate defendant in a patent infringement case "resides" only in its state of incorporation, notwithstanding the general venue statute, § 1391(c). While § 1400(b) has remained unchanged since 1957, § 1391(c) had been amended in 1988 to provide that "[f]or purposes of venue under this chapter, a defendant that is a corporation shall be deemed to reside in any judicial district in which it is subject to personal jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced." Observing that § 1400 is within the same chapter as § 1391, the Federal Circuit had treated Fourco as having been legislatively overruled. VE Holding Corp. v. Johnson Gas Appliance Co., 917 F.2d 1574 (1990).
In TC Heartland, however, the Court rejected the Federal Circuit's analysis, concluding Congress rarely makes such dramatic changes so subtly. Relying instead on the historical and textual analyses that had led initially to its own conclusion that "the patent venue statute 'alone should control venue in patent infringement proceedings,'" TC Heartland, slip op. at 4–5 (quoting Stonite Products Co. v. Melvin Lloyd Co., 315 U. S. 561, 563 (1942)), the Court reasserted the rule of Fourco. In reaching this conclusion, the Court was buttressed by additional revisions to the general venue statute in 2011. In particular, the Court pointed to § 1391(a)(1), which now states that "[e]xcept as otherwise provided by law, this section shall govern the venue of all civil actions brought in district courts of the United States." The Court reasoned that whatever support the Federal Circuit might have found for its decision in 1990, that conclusion had been undermined by this later amendment, leaving unchallenged the dominance of § 1400(b) as the exclusive basis for venue in patent cases.
The TC Heartland decision significantly shifts the patent litigation landscape. Because patent owners can no longer rely on the broad definition of "resides" in § 1391(c) to assert jurisdiction over domestic corporations in virtually any forum throughout the country, forum shopping in popular districts such as the Eastern District of Texas may now be dramatically curtailed. Foreign corporations, however, may still be sued under the general venue statute. Though the TC Heartland case itself challenged venue in Delaware, the decision ironically may result in many more cases being filed in that district, as well as other districts where patent defendants are often incorporated, especially in California. This, in turn, may lead to additional motions to transfer for convenience of the parties and witnesses under § 1404(a), where corporate defendants have no relation to the forum state other than as a place of incorporation. Such motions were notoriously unsuccessful in the Eastern District of Texas, notwithstanding recent efforts by the Federal Circuit to correct this problem. We also now expect greater reliance on, and more litigation concerning the meaning of, the second prong of § 1400(b), conferring venue "where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business." Of course, patent owners and accused infringers alike must now also consider one other basis for patent venue: consent. The affirmative defense of improper venue seems poised to make a strong comeback in patent litigation, though likely too late for defendants who have already answered in many pending cases.
Mark Romance authored a United States Law & Practice Update, entitled "New Rule Requires Foreign Applicants to Be Represented by U.S. Lawyer," published by theINTA Bulletin, a newsletter for the International Trademark Association.
Ryan S. Osterweil, a senior associate in Day Pitney's Intellectual Property group and a member of the firm's Regulated Substances practice group will be speaking on a panel, "The Cannabis Goldrush and the IP Landgrab," at a program presented by the Patents Committee of the New York City Bar Association.
On June 19, Day Pitney LLP and the Association of Corporate Counsel (ACC) Northeast Chapter co-hosted a program, "Understanding Your Brand Identity: Bridging the Gap Between Business and Legal," held at Day Pitney's Boston office.
On May 22, Heather Weine Brochin will be presenting on "Navigating New Jersey Law when Hiring and Onboarding Employees" at the Hospitality Financial and Technology Professionals Mid-Jersey Chapter event.
Jonathan Tropp will discuss the recent Federal Circuit chip technology patent case, Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor International, at the 35th Annual Joint Patent Practice Seminar in New York, NY.
Day Pitney LLP's representation of HDI Global Insurance Co. (HDI) was noted in an article, "1st Circ. Brushes Off Dental Co.'s Insurance Claim For TM Suit," published by Law360.
Ryan Osterweil was quoted in an article, "'It Isn't Illegal If It Doesn't Exist yet': Patent Laws Pose Challenges for the Cannabis Industry," which was published by Cannabis Wire and reports on a recent New York City Bar Association program where he served as a panelist.
Michael J. Dunne authored a chapter, entitled "Demystifying Service-Level Agreements and Avoiding the 'Gotchas,'" as part of the book Cloud 3.0: Drafting and Negotiating Cloud Computing Agreements published by the American Bar Association (ABA) Business Law Section.
David Doot, Steven Cash and James Blackburn, IV authored an article, "Risk and Opportunity with the Industrial Internet of Things," which was published in the July-August 2019 issue of The Journal of Robotics, Artificial Intelligence & Law.
Day Pitney Press Release