Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/16-341_8n59.pdf
Page Number: 10

Cite as:  581 U. S. ____ (2017) 

7 

Opinion of the Court 

The  court  reasoned  that  the  phrase  “[f]or  purposes  of 
venue under this chapter” was “exact and classic language
of  incorporation,”  id.,  at  1579,  and  that  §1391(c)  accord- 
ingly established the definition for all other venue statutes
under the same “chapter.”  Id., at 1580.  Because §1400(b)
fell  within  the  relevant  chapter,  the  Federal  Circuit  con-
cluded  that  §1391(c),  “on  its  face,”  “clearly  applies  to 
§1400(b),  and  thus  redefines  the  meaning  of  the  term
‘resides’ in that section.”  Id., at 1578. 

Following  VE  Holding,  no  new  developments  occurred
until  Congress  adopted  the  current  version  of  §1391  in
2011  (again  leaving  §1400(b)  unaltered).    See  Federal 
Courts  Jurisdiction  and  Venue  Clarification  Act  of  2011, 
§202,  125  Stat.  763.    Section  1391(a)  now  provides  that,
“[e]xcept as otherwise provided by law,” “this section shall 
govern  the  venue  of  all  civil  actions  brought  in  district
courts  of  the  United  States.”    And  §1391(c)(2),  in  turn,
provides  that,  “[f]or  all  venue  purposes,”  certain  entities,
“whether or not incorporated, shall be deemed to reside, if
a defendant, in any judicial district in which such defend-
ant  is  subject  to  the  court’s  personal  jurisdiction  with
respect  to  the  civil  action  in  question.”  In  its  decision 
below, the Federal Circuit reaffirmed VE Holding, reason-
ing that the 2011 amendments provided no basis to recon-
sider its prior decision. 

III 
We  reverse  the  Federal  Circuit.  In  Fourco,  this  Court 
definitively  and  unambiguously  held  that  the  word  “re-
side[nce]” in §1400(b) has a particular meaning as applied 
to  domestic2  corporations:  It  refers  only  to  the  State  of 

—————— 

2 The  parties  dispute  the  implications  of  petitioner’s  argument  for 
foreign corporations.  We do not here address that question, nor do we 
express any opinion on this Court’s holding in Brunette Machine Works, 
Ltd.  v.  Kockum  Industries,  Inc.,  406  U. S.  706  (1972)  (determining 
proper  venue  for  foreign  corporation  under  then  existing  statutory