Source: https://patentlyo.com/?s=Heartland
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 23:45:37+00:00

Document:
Heartland alleged that it is not registered to do business in Delaware, has no local presence in Delaware, has not entered into any supply contracts in Delaware or called on any accounts there to solicit sales.
Since then, Senator Flake (R-Az) introduced the VENUE Act of 2016, and last month, petitioners, led by a group including James Dabney and John Duffy, filed a petition for writ of certiori in the TC Heartland case in the Supreme Court.
The pending Federal Circuit mandamus action of In re TC Heartland involves an interesting legal question that has now been fully briefed.
In its 2017 TC Heartland decision, the Supreme Court changed course -- holding that for business-defendants in patent cases venue is only proper in districts where (1) the defendant is incorporated or (2) the defendant infringes the patent and has a regular and established place of business. Except for nationwide retailers, this significantly limits the locations where venue is proper.
1400(b). In TC Heartland the Supreme Court held that "a domestic corporation 'resides' only in its State of incorporation for purposes of the patent venue statute." TC Heartland LLC v.
TC Heartland falls directly in line with the prior supreme court decision in Fourco Glass (1957). However, during the interim, the Federal Circuit had expanded its definition of proper venue to include any court that has personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Thus, for someone who studies only Supreme Court law, TC Heartland was a continuation of an unchanged law.
Against this background, TC Heartland doesn’t seem like a case the Supreme Court would hear simply to affirm.
The recent Supreme Court decision in TC Heartland LLC v.
TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Oral Arguments.
Last week's oral arguments in TC Heartland LLC v.
After the certiorari grant in TC Heartland, Dennis solicited a blog post from anyone who thought the case was not a slam dunk.
The new pending mandamus petition of In re TC Heartland (Fed.
denied Yahoo's motion to dismiss, holding (on oral decision): (1) that Yahoo had waived its right to challenge venue; and (2) that TC Heartland did not change the law (since Fourco has been the controlling law all along). Note here, the second point - change in law - is important because it can excuse prior waiver. Under Second Circuit law: “[A] party cannot be deemed to have waived objections or defenses which were not known to be available at the time they could first have been made.” Holzsager v.
Where does a Defendant “Reside” for Jurisdictional Purposes in Patent Infringement Cases?
In re TC Heartland LLC (on mandamus to the Fed Cir.
The topside briefs have been filed in TC Heartland with strong support for the petitioner who is looking to dismantle the notion of nationwide venue against accused patent infringers.
Last week I wrote about the TC Heartland case as a mechanism for limiting venue.
In TC Heartland, the accused infringer has asked the Supreme Court to reset the law of venue and give effect to the statutory statement that infringement actions be brought either (1) "in the judicial district where the defendant resides" or (2)" where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business." 28 U.S.C.
While law professors call for venue patent reform, the TC Heartland venue and personal jurisdiction challenge appears to still have legs.
In TC Heartland (2017) the Supreme Court ruled that a patent infringement lawsuit against a US company can only be filed in a venue (1) where the defendant is registered as a corporation (i.e., "a Delaware Corporation"); or (2) a venue where the defendant "has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business." Quoting 28 U.S.C.
1400(b) states that a “civil action for patent infringement may be brought in the judicial district where the defendant resides…” In TC Heartland the Supreme Court's central holding is that “a domestic corporation ‘resides’ only in its State of incorporation for purposes of the patent venue statute.” TC Heartland LLC v.
The decision here further solidifies the impact of the TC Heartland case -- spreading jurisdiction out and away from E.D.
There's going to be a lot of litigation over whether a defendant who failed to object to venue pre-TC Heartland can raise it now.
In the pending mandamus action of TC Heartland, the merits panel has taken one step forward by ordering oral arguments - set for March 11, 2016.
§ 271(a) and TC Heartland dealt with 28 U.S.C.
Both J&J and Eon are only marginally patent cases, the core procedure case now pending is TC Heartland that would substantially upset the status quo of patent lawsuit concentration in E.D.
When the Supreme Court reverses the Federal Circuit's venue ruling in the TC Heartland case, a reversal widely expected, it will return patent venue to the time prior to 1988, when the residence of a corporation for patent venue purpose was limited to (i) a district within the state of incorporation, or (ii) a district where the corporation has a regular and established place of business and has allegedly committed an act of infringement.
In a case with the potential to truly shake-up the current state of patent litigation, the Supreme Court has granted certiorari in the patent venue case TC Heartland v.
Google filed for dismissal under TC Heartland -- arguing that it did not reside in E.D.
The potential confusion comes from the Supreme Court's central holding in TC Heartland that “a domestic corporation ‘resides’ only in its State of incorporation for purposes of the patent venue statute.” BigCommerce is a Texas Company, but its HQ is in Austin (W.D.Texas) and argues that the Supreme Court's statement was incomplete. Now, on mandamus, the Federal Circuit has sided with BigCommerce -- holding that the rule is more nuanced for multi-venue states.… The Federal Circuit's decision here has to be correct, and the only difficulty is the loose Supreme Court wording in TC Heartland.
Janicke returns to the Patently-O Patent Law Journal with a look back at his predictions about venue prior to the Supreme Court's decision in TC Heartland LLC v.
In TC Heartland, the Supreme Court ruled that patent-venue is a unique patent law question.
In what appears to me as dicta, the Federal Circuit went on to explain its position that the Delaware court is a proper venue for the foreign corporation. Rather, according to the court, TC Heartland did nothing to disturb the “long-established rule that suits against aliens are wholly outside the operation of all the federal venue laws, general and special.” Quoting Brunette Machine Works, Ltd.
§ 271(f)(1) for supplying single component); Impression Products (using patents as a personal property servitude); Sandoz (BPCIA patent dance); and last-but-not-least TC Heartland (Does the general definition of "residence" found in 28 U.S.C.
In TC Heartland LLC v.
Today, the Federal Circuit heard oral argument in the mandamus petition brought in the TC Heartland case.
The transfer was deemed appropriate under the TC Heartland case.
Briefing: TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Food Brands Group LLC, No 16-341 (Does the general and broad definition of "residence" found in 28 U.S.C.
However, that option will be severely limited if the Supreme Court tightens patent venue in the pending TC Heartland case.
Walter Olson: TC Heartland v.
Venue in Patent Cases: TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Food Brands Group LLC, No 16-341 (Does the general and broad definition of "residence" found in 28 U.S.C.
The Federal Circuit recently confirmed in In re TC Heartland (Fed.
Last week I discussed the TC Heartland mandamus petition here and here. Two amicus briefs have now been filed in support of the petition.

References: v.

 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v.

 v.

§ 271
 v.

 v.

§ 271
 v.

 v. 
 v.

 v.