Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/16-341_8n59.pdf
Page Number: 6

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

3 

Opinion of the Court 

to the District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, 
arguing  that  venue  was  improper  in  Delaware.  See  28 
U. S. C. §1406.  Citing Fourco’s holding that a corporation 
resides  only  in  its  State  of  incorporation  for  patent  in-
fringement  suits,  petitioner  argued  that  it  did  not 
“resid[e]”  in  Delaware  under  the  first  clause  of  §1400(b).
It  further  argued  that  it  had  no  “regular  and  established 
place of business” in Delaware under the second clause of 
§1400(b).  Relying on Circuit precedent, the District Court 
rejected these arguments, 2015 WL 5613160 (D Del., Sept. 
24,  2015),  and  the  Federal  Circuit  denied  a  petition  for  a 
writ  of  mandamus,  In re  TC  Heartland  LLC,  821  F. 3d 
1338  (2016).  The  Federal  Circuit  concluded  that  subse-
quent  statutory  amendments  had  effectively  amended
§1400(b)  as  construed  in  Fourco,  with  the  result  that 
§1391(c)  now  supplies  the  definition  of  “resides”  in
§1400(b).  821  F. 3d,  at  1341–1343.    Under  this  logic,
because  the  District  of  Delaware  could  exercise  personal
jurisdiction over petitioner, petitioner resided in Delaware
under §1391(c) and, therefore, under §1400(b).  We granted 
certiorari, 580 U. S. ___ (2016), and now reverse. 

II
 
A 

The  history  of  the  relevant  statutes  provides  important 
context  for  the  issue  in  this  case.    The  Judiciary  Act  of 
1789  permitted  a  plaintiff  to  file  suit  in  a  federal  district 
court if the defendant was “an inhabitant” of that district 
or  could  be  “found”  for  service  of  process  in  that  district.
Act  of  Sept.  24,  1789,  §11,  1  Stat.  79.    The  Act  covered 
patent cases as well as other civil suits.  Stonite Products 
Co.  v.  Melvin  Lloyd  Co.,  315  U. S.  561,  563  (1942).    In 
1887, Congress amended the statute to permit suit only in 
the  district  of  which  the  defendant  was  an  inhabitant  or, 
in  diversity  cases,  of  which  either  the  plaintiff  or  defend-
ant  was  an  inhabitant.    See  Act  of  Mar.  3,  1887,  §1,  24