The U.S. Supreme Court has handed down a trilogy of cases this term that together confront issues of venue, general personal jurisdiction, and specific personal jurisdiction. See TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods, 137 S. Ct. 1514 (2017); BNSF Railway v. Tyrell, 137 S. Ct. 1549 (2017); Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Superior Court of Cal., No. 16-466, 2017 WL 2621322 (U.S. June 19, 2017). This article reviews the new trio of civil procedure cases and summarizes the impact they are likely to have on forum choice.
‘TC Heartland’
TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods concerns venue in patent suits. Kraft Foods, the plaintiff, brought a patent infringement suit in the District of Delaware against TC Heartland, Kraft’s competitor. Id. TC Heartland’s only connection to Delaware was shipping the allegedly infringing products there. Id. Accordingly, TC Heartland moved to transfer venue, arguing that venue was improper in Delaware based on 28 U.S.C. §1400(b), the patent venue statute.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
