August 22, 2019

August 22, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

August 21, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

August 20, 2019

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

A Sales Agent’s Home Office May Qualify as a Regular and Established Place of Business

In our continued post-TC Heartland coverage, the Southern District of New York recently held that an employee’s home office in New York constituted a “regular and established place of business” in the state as required by the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). RegenLab USA LLC v. Estar Technologies Ltd. et al., 16-cv-8771 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 15, 2018).  In RegenLab, the court found that defendant Eclipse’s business model required its employees to work out of their homes, thereby ratifying a worker’s home in the Southern District as a place of business under In re Craydespite Eclipse’s failure to satisfy venue otherwise.

The court found that an Eclipse employee’s sales territory covered the New York and New Jersey regions, and the agent worked out of a home office in New York. The New York employee’s home office was not merely a “sporadic” or isolated work environment, but rather that the employee conducted “business” out of the home office in New York in various ways. The crux of the court’s reasoning seems to turn on the court’s recognition that because “all Eclipse employees work from home, home offices constitute a primary physical location for Eclipse’s business.”

The court further found that, while Eclipse did not specifically require that sales people live in their assigned territory, Eclipse did try “to hire people living within their assigned sales territory.” Eclipse’s job posting requirements necessitated working within a sales territory where the sales agent must “[i]dentify and qualify prospective customers, demonstrate company products and establish new business” and “develop and maintain local luminaries, workshops and training centers.” Moreover, sales agents must contact potential customers at their offices and conduct trainings when products arrive, which necessitated proximity to customers.

In consideration of these facts, the Court applied the factors from In re Cray and found that the home office qualified as a regular and established place of business in New York of the defendant Eclipse, and that venue was proper.

©1994-2019 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS


About this Author

 Andrew H. DeVoogd Member Boston Mintz Patent Litigation Licensing & Technology Transactions International Trade Commission Strategic IP Monetization & Licensing Federal District Court IP Due Diligence
Member

Drew is an experienced patent litigator and trial attorney whose work encompasses a broad range of technologies. He regularly represents clients in high stakes International Trade Commission investigations involving some of the world's largest technology companies. He also litigates patent matters and other business disputes in federal district courts around the country, and advises clients in complex IP licensing and related transactions. Drew excels at helping clients make sense of nuanced legal issues while developing effective strategies to protect and leverage their intellectual...

617-348-1611
Daniel Weinger, Mintz Levin Law Firm, Boston, Intellectual Property Litigation Attorney
Associate

Daniel's practice in intellectual property focuses on patent litigation, both at the International Trade Commission and the Federal District Courts. Daniel has participated in all phases of patent litigation, including active engagement in multiple evidentiary hearings at the International Trade Commission. He has done work in a variety of technology areas, including computer software, software architecture, GPS, network devices, semiconductors, converged devices, and LED lighting.

Prior to joining Mintz Levin, Daniel worked with Pepper Hamilton LLP and as a database programmer with InterSystems, Corp., where he specialized in programming solutions for database development with a focus primarily on integration engines.

While on leave from Mintz Levin, from 2014 - 2015, Daniel practiced as a Special Assistant District Attorney in the Middlesex County (MA) District Attorney's Office, based in the Framingham, MA, district court.  During that time, Daniel prosecuted and tried numerous drug, larceny, breaking and entering, and motor vehicle cases in bench and jury sessions.  He also argued bail hearings, motions to suppress, and motions to dismiss.

617-348-1629