The past year has seen significant changes in venue law in patent cases. In TC Heartland v. Kraft Food Group Brands, 137 S. Ct. 1514 (2017), the U.S. Supreme Court held that venue is proper under 28 U.S.C. §1400(b), the patent venue statute, only in the judicial district in which the defendant resides or in a judicial district in which the defendant committed acts of infringement and has “regular and established place of business.” Then, in In re Cray, the Federal Circuit gave some guidance as to what constitutes a “regular and established place of business” for patent-venue purposes. See 871 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Since then, at least two dozen district court cases have applied In re Cray to determine whether venue was proper. Because of the importance of filing suit in a district in which venue is proper, we report here on the post-Cray landscape and provide guidance for practitioners.
*May exclude premium content
Already have an account? Sign In Now
Interested in customizing your subscription with Law.com All Access?
Contact our Sales Professionals at 1-855-808-4530 or send an email to email@example.com to learn more.