November 27, 2021

Volume XI, Number 331

Advertisement
Advertisement

November 24, 2021

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis
Advertisement

Federal Circuit Rejects Attempt to Limit Venue in Patent Cases

With venue for patent cases being a subject of great debate across the nation, the Federal Circuit was asked to reconsider its position on the matter but ruled on April 29, 2016, to maintain the status quo.

The current standard, enunciated by the Federal Circuit in VE Holding Corp. v. Johnson Gas Appliance Co., is very broad and has led to concerns about forum shopping and over-reliance on a few jurisdictions. For example, last year alone more than 45 percent of patent cases in the United States were filed in the Eastern District of Texas, according to statistics compiled by Law360. Repeated attempts to limit venue for patent cases have failed in Congress.

In an attempt to address the issue through the judiciary, the matter was brought to the Federal Circuit, which rejected the new argument to limit venue for patent cases, maintaining its original holding.

In the matter, Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC sued TC Heartland LLC ("Heartland") for patent infringement in the U.S. District Court in Delaware – Heartland is an Indiana LLC with its headquarters in Indiana and Kraft is a Delaware entity with its principal place of business in Illinois. It was undisputed that Heartland sold allegedly infringing products in Delaware with Delaware sales accounting for about 2 percent of Heartland's total sales of the accused products for 2013.

The general venue statute that applies to all civil actions, 28 U.S.C. 1391, provides for venue in any judicial district in which a defendant resides. Section 1391(c) defines "residency" for "an entity with the capacity to sue and be sued," such as an LLC or corporation as any "judicial district in which such defendant is subject to the court's personal jurisdiction." The specific patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. 1400(b), allows for a defendant to be sued for patent infringement "where the defendant resides, or where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business." In VE Holding, the Federal Circuit held that the definition of corporate residence from section 1391(c) applied to the patent venue statute, section 1400(b).

In 2011, Congress made minor amendments to general venue statute. Based on the 2011 amendments, which did not change the definition of corporate residence, Heartland argued VE Holding no longer applied. Accordingly, Heartland maintained that venue for patent cases is governed by section 1400(b) and was not appropriate in Delaware. 

The Federal Circuit rejected Heartland's argument. The Court determined that the 2011 amendments were not intended to overrule the VE Holding decision. Therefore, venue is appropriate in Delaware for Kraft's infringement action because Heartland is subject to personal jurisdiction there based on sales of its allegedly infringing products. The decision is now expected to leave any changes in the short term to the Congress.

© Polsinelli PC, Polsinelli LLP in CaliforniaNational Law Review, Volume VI, Number 130
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

About this Author

Keith J. Grady, Polsinelli, Trade Secret Technology Protections, Lawyer, Copyright Infringement Attorney
Practice Chair

Specializing in disputes relating to all forms of intellectual property, Keith Grady's 25 years of experience in courtrooms across the nation provides him with the knowledge and insight necessary to advise his clients on the full range of options available. Whether in the courtroom, boardroom or around a mediation table, Keith uses his advocacy skills to further the goals of his clients and avoid unnecessary disruptions to their business.

Keith’s areas of focus include:

  • Patent 

  • ...
314.552.6883
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement