Source: https://www.foley.com/en/insights/publications/2017/05/the-supreme-court-reverses-decadesold-venue-preced
Timestamp: 2019-09-17 20:17:10
Document Index: 594306757

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

The Supreme Court Reverses Decades-Old Venue Precedent and Reaffirms Fourco | Newsletters | Legal News: IP Litigation | Foley & Lardner LLP
Home Insights The Supreme Court Reverses Decades-Old Venue Precedent and Reaffirms Fourco
22 May 2017 Legal News: IP Litigation Publication
In reaching its decision, the T.C. Heartland Court traces the history of the statutory and decisional law that preceded its decision in Fourco. Prior to Fourco, the patent venue statute existed as a separate provision for determining venue in patent cases. In Fourco, the Supreme Court addressed a 1948 recodification of the venue statutes that changed the word “inhabit[s]” to “resides” in the patent venue statute, while simultaneously enacting the general venue statute that included a definition of “residence” for corporate defendants. Slip op. at 5. The lower court in Fourco had concluded that §1391(c) defined residence for §1400(b). The Supreme Court disagreed and reversed, holding that, in light of the statutory history, “§1400(b) ‘is the sole and exclusive provision controlling venue in patent infringe­ment actions, and . . . is not to be supplemented by . . . §1391(c).’” Slip op. at 5 citing 353 U. S. at 229. Focusing on Congressional intent, the Supreme Court noted that “nothing in the 1948 recodification evidenced an intent to alter [§1400(b)’s status as a standalone venue statute.]” Slip op. at 5. It further concluded that “reside” in §1400(b) carried the same meaning as “inhabit” in the pre-1948 statute and thus defendants were “subject to venue only in their State of incorporation.” Id. at 6.