In TC Heartland, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that for patent cases, venue is proper in the accused infringer’s state of incorporation or in any judicial district where defendant has infringed and has a “regular and established place of business.” As expected, this ruling produced a flood of venue transfer motions focused on the issue of what qualifies as a “regular and established place of business” under 28 U.S.C. §1400(b). Moreover, patent owners who want access to popular courts in the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas remain undeterred—they continue to initiate suit in these courts and thereby test the limits of TC Heartland.

In an effort to secure venue in these popular courts, patent owners have advanced theories for venue based on the physical location of the defendant’s parents or subsidiaries, the defendant’s online presence through computers and servers, and facts showing that defendant has ratified as its place of business the location of an employee or third party. In this article, we examine how the Federal Circuit and district courts construe “regular and established place of business” in the face of these efforts to expand the reach of courts in these popular venues.

Venue After ‘TC Heartland’

This content has been archived.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 Advance® Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now

Why am I seeing this?

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]