Koffsky Schwalb LLC
  • Home
  • Attorneys
    • Mark I. Koffsky
    • Efrem Schwalb
    • Gary Serbin
    • Steven A. Weg
    • Daniel E. Baron
    • Tal S. Benschar
  • Practice Areas
    • Business Law
    • Civil Litigation
    • Intellectual Property
    • Employment Law
    • Real Estate
  • Blog
  • Contact
Phone: (646) 553-1590 | Fax: (646) 553-1591

Beyond The Legalese

For Patent Plaintiffs, Supreme Court Decision Puts an End to Venue Shopping

5/30/2017

1 Comment

 
Picture
Choosing a favorable jurisdiction in which to bring suit is known as “venue shopping.”  Since 1988, plaintiffs in patent lawsuits have had almost free rein in choosing jurisdiction.  But a recent Supreme Court ruling in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, No. 16-341(S. Ct. May 22, 2017) has changed the legal landscape, severely limiting the possible venues for patent lawsuits against domestic corporations.
 
The venue statute for patent cases, 28 U.S.C. § 1400, provides that “any civil action for patent infringement may be brought in the judicial district where the defendant resides, or where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has regular and established place of business.” 
 
At the same time, the venue statute governing general lawsuits allows a plaintiff to bring an action in “any judicial district in which any defendant resides” and further provides that a corporation “shall be deemed to reside, if a defendant, in any district in which such defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction with respect to the civil action in question.”  (28 U.S.C. § 1391(a), (c).)  
 
Before the recent Supreme Court decision, district courts have routinely interpreted the general venue statute to apply to patent cases  , thus allowing the term “residence” to be construed broadly.  This broader construction of “residence” has allowed plaintiffs to bring infringement actions in any jurisdiction in which the defendant’s products were sold.  Practically speaking, this meant a deluge of patent cases in jurisdictions like the Eastern District of Texas which is known to work fast and be plaintiff-friendly.
 
In the Kraft Foods v. TC Heartland case, Kraft Foods brought a patent infringement suit in Delaware, its state of incorporation, concerning products that TC Heartland distributed for sale in Delaware.  TC Heartland, however, argued that, because it had no “regular and established place of business” in Delaware and did not “reside” in Delaware under § 1400(b), the Delaware court lacked jurisdiction. 
 
Agreeing with TC Heartland, the Supreme Court clarified that, for domestic corporations, the term “resides” in §1400 is limited  to defendant’s state of incorporation. As a result, a patent infringement lawsuit against a domestic corporation must now be brought either in its state of incorporation or where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business.
 
The decision will have immediate consequences.  Courts in East Texas will probably see far fewer patent cases, despite still being the likely home for suits brought against foreign corporations..  On the other hand, courts in jurisdictions that are home to disproportionate numbers of corporations, such as Delaware and California, may be swamped with patent litigation over the coming months.

Image Credit

​

1 Comment


    Categories

    All
    Civil Procedure
    Constitutional Law
    Copyright
    Corporate
    Employment Law
    International
    Internet
    Litigation
    Media
    Patent
    Privacy
    Real Estate
    Software
    Tax Law
    Trademark


    Archives

    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    November 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    November 2015
    October 2015
    July 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    September 2013
    July 2013
    June 2013
    April 2013
    March 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013

    RSS Feed

     349 Fifth Avenue | Suite 733 | New York, NY 10016 | T: 646.553.1590
  Attorney Advertising | Legal Notices | Privacy Policy
Proudly powered by Weebly