Source: http://www.dfwpatentlaw.com/blog/2016/12/supreme-court-grants-cert-on-patent-venue-case.shtml
Timestamp: 2017-09-19 22:20:26
Document Index: 180427302

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1400', '§ 1400', '§ 1391', '§ 1391', '§ 1400', '§ 1400', '§ 1391']

Supreme Court Grants Cert on Patent Venue Case | Eldredge Law Firm
By Sam Gee of Eldredge Law Firm posted in Patent Law on Wednesday, December 14, 2016.
However, this could change very soon. On Wednesday, December 14, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Food Brands Group LLC, in which it will determine whether 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) should be the exclusive section to govern venue issues in cases involving patent infringement. This ruling will either encourage or silence the current cries for patent venue shopping reform.
There are two statutes to be considered: § 1400(b) states a "patent infringement may be brought in the judicial district where the defendant resides, or where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business" whereas § 1391(c) states a corporation may be deemed a resident of "any judicial district in which such defendant is subject to the court's personal jurisdiction..." Way back in 1957, long before the patent world was on the forefront of the national stage, the Supreme Court ruled § 1391(c) should not supplement § 1400(b), because "§ 1400(b) is the sole and exclusive provision controlling venue in patent infringement actions." However, Congress amended the sections in 1988 and "rendered the statutory definition of corporate residence found in § 1391 applicable to patent cases."
It is interesting that this is the case the Supreme Court has chosen to use to decide this issue. For one thing, Heartland is an LLC organized under Indiana law. The case originated in Delaware, where Heartland argues it has no contacts, beyond shipping orders of products to two customers in Delaware, and thus is not subject to personal jurisdiction. This case is actually not related to the Eastern District of Texas in any way, but is in effect going to decide the issue of forum shopping in east Texas.
This decision has already faced significant criticism: Gene Quinn of IPWatchdog has declared it "unconscionable" that the Supreme Court would grant cert and play such a significant part in a "macabre judicial protest." While I would not go that far, I do think it would have been more appropriate for the Court to have chosen a case that seems more related to the actual elephant in the room: the disproportionate amount of patent infringement cases filed in Marshall, Texas.
http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-small-town-judge-who-sees-a-quarter-of-the-nations-patent-cases
http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2016/12/14/supreme-court-patent-venue-case-patent-reform-implications/id=75751/
http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/tc-heartland-llc-v-kraft-food-brands-group-llc/