January 16, 2022

Volume XII, Number 16

Advertisement
Advertisement

January 15, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

January 14, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

January 13, 2022

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

Yahoo Asks Federal Circuit to Determine Whether TC Heartland Changed, or Merely Clarified, Venue Rules

In an interesting development in the post-TC Heartland world, it appears that the Federal Circuit will soon answer the question whether the Supreme Court’s venue decision was a change in the law, or merely a course-correction to honor preexisting law. Here, in a case arising out of the Eastern District of New York, the Federal Circuit ordered AlmondNet, Inc., Datonics, LLC, and Intent IQ, LLC to respond to a petition for a writ of mandamus submitted by Yahoo Holdings, Inc.  In its petition, Yahoo argued that the District Court erred in denying its motion to transfer, and specifically that it waived the right to challenge venue on the basis that TC Heartland did not change the law of venue.

In its petition, Yahoo stated that it conditionally admitted that venue was proper in its answer under VE Holding Corp. v. Johnson Gas Appliance Co., which stood for the proposition that venue is appropriate wherever a defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction.  However, in its answer to the complaint, Yahoo claimed to reserve the right to challenge venue in the event that the then-pending TC Heartland changed the standard. Following the Supreme Court decision, Yahoo attempted to leverage this reservation of rights and moved to transfer based on the purported change in the law. The District Court denied the motion, concluding that TC Heartland merely clarified existing law.

We would be surprised if the Federal Circuit declines to resolve the question whether the Supreme Court changed the controlling law on venue. Yahoo’s petition argues that the Supreme Court’s reversal of VE Holding changed the meaning of “resides” from “personal jurisdiction” to “state of incorporation,” a question we have written about here.

©1994-2022 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.National Law Review, Volume VII, Number 314
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

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
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement