Source: https://delawareintellectualproperty.foxrothschild.com/2017/05/articles/district-of-delaware-1/the-u-s-supreme-court-reverses-the-federal-circuit-in-tc-heartland-and-rules-that-residence-in-patent-venue-statute-means-only-the-state-of-incorporation/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 20:27:06+00:00

Document:
Today, through a unanimous decision of the Court delivered by Justice Thomas (with the exception of Justice Gorsuch who took no part in the consideration or decision of the case), the U.S. Supreme Court in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, 581 U.S. _____ (2017) reversed the Federal Circuit in ruling that 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) remains the only applicable patent venue statute, the term “residence” in 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) refers only to the State of incorporation of a domestic corporation, and that 28 U.S.C. § 1391 did not supplement or modify § 1400(b) or the Supreme Court’s prior decision in Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Products Corp., 353 U.S. 222 226 (1957). Thus, given today’s ruling, patent infringement lawsuits will only be able to be filed in judicial districts in states where the infringing defendant is incorporated or in judicial districts where defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business.
A copy of the U.S. Supreme Court’s Opinion is attached.
The general take away is that, if a patent infringement action is filed against a defendant in a state where defendant is not incorporated or in a state where defendant does not have a regular and established place of business and/or has not committed acts of infringement, the allegedly infringing defendant should move to dismiss or transfer the action for lack of venue.

References: v. 
 § 1400
 § 1400
 § 1391
 § 1400
 v.