Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/16pdf/16-341_8n59.pdf
Page Number: 5.0

2  TC HEARTLAND LLC v. KRAFT FOODS GROUP BRANDS LLC 

Opinion of the Court 

judicial  district  in  which  such  defendant  is  subject  to  the
court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to the civil action
in  question.”    §§1391(a),  (c).  The  issue  in  this  case  is 
whether  that  definition  supplants  the  definition  an-
nounced in Fourco and allows a plaintiff to bring a patent
infringement lawsuit against a corporation in any district 
in which the corporation is subject to personal jurisdiction.
We conclude that the amendments to §1391 did not modify
the  meaning  of  §1400(b)  as  interpreted  by  Fourco.  We 
therefore hold that a domestic corporation “resides” only in
its State of incorporation for purposes of the patent venue 
statute. 

I 
Petitioner,  which  is  organized  under  Indiana  law  and
headquartered  in  Indiana,  manufactures  flavored  drink 
mixes.1   Respondent,  which  is  organized  under  Delaware
law and has its principal place of business in Illinois, is a 
competitor  in  the  same  market.  As  relevant  here,  re-
spondent  sued  petitioner  in  the  District  Court  for  the 
District  of  Delaware,  alleging  that  petitioner’s  products
infringed one of respondent’s patents.  Although petitioner 
is not registered to conduct business in Delaware and has
no  meaningful  local  presence  there,  it  does  ship  the  al- 
legedly infringing products into the State.

Petitioner  moved  to  dismiss  the  case  or  transfer  venue 

—————— 

1 The complaint alleged that petitioner is a corporation, and petitioner 
admitted  this  allegation  in  its  answer.    See  App.  11a,  60a.    Similarly,
the  petition  for  certiorari  sought  review  on  the  question  of  “corporate” 
residence.    See  Pet.  for  Cert.  i.    In  their  briefs  before  this  Court,  how- 
ever,  the  parties  suggest  that  petitioner  is,  in  fact,  an  unincorporated 
entity.  See Brief for Respondent 9, n. 4 (the complaint’s allegation was
“apparently inaccurat[e]”); Reply Brief 4.  Because this case comes to us 
at the pleading stage and has been litigated on the understanding that 
petitioner is a corporation, we confine our analysis to the proper venue
for  corporations.    We  leave  further  consideration  of  the  issue  of  peti-
tioner’s legal status to the courts below on remand.