Source: https://www.whitecase.com/publications/article/re-micron-tech-waiver-and-improper-venue-challenges-post-tc-heartland
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 07:53:36+00:00

Document:
In its recent In re Micron Tech opinion1, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit answered one of the most hotly contested issues springing from the wake of TC Heartland—does the Supreme Court's TC Heartland opinion2 qualify as a change-of-law such that an alleged infringer who failed to raise the defense of improper venue pre-TC Heartland will not be adjudged to have waived the defense?
The Supreme Court's decision in TC Heartland represents a sea of change in the analysis to determine proper venue in patent cases.3 Soon after TC Heartland, the Federal Circuit provided a roadmap to determine if venue is proper in a patent case post-TC Heartland.4 However, an important question remained—may accused infringers who failed to raise the defense of improper venue pre-TC Heartland now challenge venue post-TC Heartland. The Federal Circuit squarely addressed the issue in its recent In re Micron Tech opinion, finding that TC Heartland qualifies as a change-of law and thus an alleged infringer's defense of improper venue has not been waived simply through the failure to raise the defense pre-TC Heartland.5 However, the Federal Circuit also warned that these same venue challenges are still vulnerable to rejection by other means.
In In re Micron Tech, plaintiff Harvard sued defendant Micron for patent infringement in the District of Massachusetts in late 2016. Micron responded with a 12(b) motion to dismiss but did not include an objection to venue under 12(b)(3) in its motion. After the Supreme Court issued the TC Heartland opinion, Micron filed a motion to dismiss or transfer based on improper venue. The district court denied Micron's motion, finding that Micron had waived its improper venue defense by not including it in its initial 12(b) motion, and Micron appealed by filing a petition for a writ of mandamus.
This opinion will also likely spark a new wave of fights on the proper analysis for finding forfeiture of a venue objection under a court's inherent powers. Indeed, district courts grappling with the decision already show signs of divergence. The District of Delaware in Treehouse Avatar LLC v. Valve Corp. found that a defendant did not forfeit its venue objection relying, in part, on the fact that the defendant previously contested venue in its motion to transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404.20 However, confronting the same fact, the Eastern District of Texas in Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. FedEx Corp. reached the opposite conclusion that the defendants relinquished their venue objection "because a motion under § 1404 is premised on venue being proper in the transferor court[.]"21 Accordingly, differing applications of the In re Micron Tech opinion will likely emerge across district courts in the near future until the Federal Circuit provide further clarity on the issue.
The Federal Circuit's In re Micron Tech opinion that TC Heartland changed the law controlling proper venue in patent cases provides an opportunity for patent defendants to challenge venue even if they failed to raise it before the Supreme Court issued its TC Heartland opinion. However, the Federal Circuit also explained that the absence of waiver is not necessarily the end of the issue because other avenues are still available to the courts for finding that a defendant has forfeited an otherwise meritorious venue defense.
1 In re Micron Tech., Inc., No. 2017-138, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 22956 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 15, 2017).
2 TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Grp. Brands LLC, 137 S. Ct. 1514 (2017).
3 TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Grp. Brands LLC, 137 S. Ct. 1514, 1521 (2017) (finding that for the purposes of patent venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), a corporation "resides" only in its State of incorporation rather than in any judicial district in which it is subject to personal jurisdiction).
5 In re Micron Tech., Inc., No. 2017-138, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 22956, at *2 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 15, 2017) (finding that TC Heartland qualifies as a change in the law making waiver under FRCP 12 for failure to include the defense of improper venue in a responsive motion inapplicable).
6 Id. at *8 (discussing the interaction between FRCP 12(g)(2) and FRCP 12(h)(1)(A) on waiver of 12(b) defenses).
11 VE Holding Corp. v. Johnson Gas Appliance Co., 917 F.2d 1574, 1583-1584 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (finding that for the purposes of patent venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), a corporation "resides" in any judicial district in which it is subject to personal jurisdiction).
12 In re Micron Tech., Inc., No. 2017-138, 2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 22956, at *14 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 15, 2017).
20 Treehouse Avatar LLC v. Valve Corp., No. 15-cv-427, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 191056, at * 7 (D. Del. Nov. 20, 2017).
21 Intellectual Ventures II LLC v. FedEx Corp., No. 2:16-cv-980, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 193581, at *11 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 22, 2017).

References: v. 
 § 1404
 v. 
 § 1404
 v. 
 v. 
 § 1400
 v. 
 § 1400
 v. 
 v.