POWERED BY LAW.COM
 
Commentary

A Year Later: The Impact in Delaware From the US Supreme Court’s 'TC Heartland'

X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
James Green, Landis Rath & Cobb

Almost one year ago, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the landmark case of TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods Group Brands, 137 S. Ct. 1514 (May 22, 2017). The decision upended what had been the status quo on the issue of where venue lies in patent infringement actions. The author has written before for the Delaware Business Court Insider about a looming potential for a restriction on where plaintiffs may bring patent infringement lawsuits, first in 2016 when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit acted on a writ of mandamus and issued its opinion on the issue, maintaining a broad interpretation of the applicable venue statutes, and again when the Supreme Court first issued TC Heartland and overruled a 26-year-old precedent of the Federal Circuit. The question had always been whether a Supreme Court ruling would end an era during which, for certain periods, over 40 percent of all patent infringement suits were being brought in the Eastern District of Texas. Now, a year later, there is evidence that this concentration of a single type of litigation in a single district is being redistributed among other historically significant patent infringement litigation venues, including the District of Delaware.

This premium content is locked for
Delaware Business Court Insider subscribers only.

  • Subscribe now to enjoy unlimited access to Delaware Business Court Insider content,
  • 5 free articles* across the ALM Network every 30 days,
  • Exclusive access to other free ALM publications
  • And exclusive discounts on ALM events and publications.

*May exclude premium content
Already have an account?
Interested in customizing your subscription with Law.com All Access?
Contact our Sales Professionals at 1-855-808-4530 or send an email to groupsales@alm.com to learn more.

Trending Stories

Lean Adviser Legal

Think Lean Daily Message

"Law firms are rightly afraid of having their bills challenged or, worse still, being sued by clients. They also have numerous safety related processes. These include client vetting, conflict checks, and of course training and supervision of lawyers. But the ultimate safety measure is doing the work effectively, efficiently, and transparently."

Learn More

Recommended Stories

Creditors Committee Dissolves Upon Conversion of Chapter 11 Cases

Barry M. Klayman and Mark E. Felger |

In Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors v. Constellation Enterprises (In re Constellation Enterprises), Judge Andrews held that a creditors’ committee automatically dissolved when a Chapter 11 case was converted to a Chapter 7 case and as a result it lacked the capacity or authority to pursue appeals that had been filed from orders of the bankruptcy court, including the order converting the case.

Contractual Duties to Conduct a Business in Accordance With 'Sound Business Practices'

Gabriel Herrmann and Lee R. Crain |

The Delaware Court of Chancery’s decision in Wenske v. Blue Bell Creameries, C.A. No. 2017-0699-JRS (July 6, 2018) (Slights, V.C.), highlights an interesting practical challenge faced by parties seeking to impose oversight obligations on a manager charged with operating a business in accordance with sound industry business practices.

More from ALM

ALM Legal Publication Newsletters

Sign Up Today and Never Miss Another Story.

As part of your digital membership, you can sign up for an unlimited number of a wide range of complimentary newsletters. Visit your My Account page to make your selections. Get the timely legal news and critical analysis you cannot afford to miss. Tailored just for you. In your inbox. Every day.

Privacy Policy - Updated

Privacy Policy - Updated / Terms of Service

Publications

Law Topics

Rankings

More

Law.com

Copyright © 2018 ALM Media Properties, LLC. All Rights Reserved.