November 20, 2017

November 17, 2017

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.

©1994-2017 Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C. All Rights Reserved.

TRENDING LEGAL ANALYSIS


About this Author

Andrew H. DeVoogd, Mintz Levin, Intellectual Property Litigation Lawyer, International Trade Commission Investigations attorney
Associate

Drew focuses his intellectual property practice in patent litigation specifically in International Trade Commission Section 337 investigations. He has participated in all phases of high-stakes patent litigation in the ITC, including as part of the strategy and trial team at multiple ITC evidentiary hearings, and also has significant experience in patent litigation in the federal district courts. In addition, Drew helps clients protect and leverage IP rights to maximize their value through strategic counseling, and has participated in negotiating and drafting numerous...

617.348.1611
Associate

Tony is an Associate in the firm’s Boston office. He has worked with a wide range of technologies including manufacturing, telecommunications, and software development.

Tony’s experience includes assisting in the preparation of patent applications and pre-suit diligence, including patent portfolio analysis; drafting infringement/non-infringement and validity/invalidity analyses; and providing technical and scientific advice to legal practitioners in ITC-337 investigations and US District Court matters. During law school, Tony served as the production editor of the Journal of Health & Biomedical Law.

617-348-1778