UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

ELEKTA LTD. and

WILLIAM BEAUMONT HOSPITAL,

Plaintiffs,

vs. Case No. 15-12169

VARIAN MEDICAL SYSTEMS, INC., HON. AVERN COHN

Defendant.

_______________________________/

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER STAYING PROCEEDINGS

I.

This is a patent case. Plaintiffs Elekta Ltd. (Elekta) and William Beaumont

Hospital (Beaumont) are suing defendant Varian Medical Systems, Inc. (Varian)

claiming direct and indirect infringement of three patents, all titled “Cone Beam

Computed Technology with a Flat Panel Imager.” The patents were developed by

physicians at Beaumont. Elekta is the exclusive licensee of the patents-in-suit, and

provides the patented technology to Beaumont’s Michigan hospitals. The papers

describe that the patented technology as “linear accelerators” which provide “precise

radiation cancer therapy, yet prevents destruction of healthy surrounding tissue, through

the use of cone beam computed tomography and flat-panel imaging systems.” Elekta

and Beaumont assert that Varian knew of the patented technology before they made a

competing product, which uses the patented technology, and sold it to other hospitals,

including Henry Ford, McLaren, and the University of Michigan. Elekta and Beaumont

further allege that Varian trained hospital staff in how to use the produce, thereby

2:15-cv-12169-AC-MKM Doc # 26 Filed 11/05/15 Pg 1 of 3 Pg ID 473
inducing infringement by third parties.

II.

Before the Court is Varian’s motion to dismiss for improper venue or, in the

alternative, to transfer the case to the Northern District of California. (Doc. 11). As

noted in the papers, the primary issue presented in the motion is presently before the

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on mandamus. See In re: TC Heartland, LLC,

No. 15-000105 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 26, 2015). That is, whether 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b)1

 is sole

statute for purposes of determining a defendant’s residency in a patent case or is it

supplemented by the residency requirements under 28 U.S.C.§ 1391(c) as held in VE

Holding Corp. v. Johnson Gas Appliance Co., 917 F. 2d 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1990).2

Under the circumstances, the prudent course is to stay proceedings pending the

Federal Circuit’s decision in TC Heartland. The parties shall promptly advise the Court

of the Federal Circuit’s decision.

1

Section 1400(b) provides:

Any 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.

2

Section 1391(c) provides:

For 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. In a State which has more than

one judicial district and in which a defendant that is a corporation is subject to

personal jurisdiction at the time an action is commenced, such corporation shall

be deemed to reside in any district in that State within which its contacts would

be sufficient to subject it to personal jurisdiction if that district were a separate

State, and, if there is no such district, the corporation shall be deemed to reside

in the district within which it has the most significant contacts.

2

2:15-cv-12169-AC-MKM Doc # 26 Filed 11/05/15 Pg 2 of 3 Pg ID 474
Accordingly, proceedings in this matter are STAYED until further order of the

Court.3

SO ORDERED.

S/Avern Cohn 

AVERN COHN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Dated: November 5, 2015

Detroit, Michigan

3

The Court suggest that should venue in this district be found statutorily correct,

Varian is unlikely to prevail on its alternative argument regarding a transfer.

3

2:15-cv-12169-AC-MKM Doc # 26 Filed 11/05/15 Pg 3 of 3 Pg ID 475