By John Murphy, BakerHostetler (January 30, 2017, 12:50 PM EST) -- For the past quarter-century, plaintiffs have been bringing patent infringement suits anywhere they could establish that courts had personal jurisdiction over defendants. But soon, if the U.S. Supreme Court agrees with the petitioner in TC Heartland v. Kraft, plaintiffs will often have to show that defendants have a "regular and established place of business" in the judicial district.[1] This now-obscure statutory language — which is unique to patent disputes — was once the focus of regular and intense litigation, and no shortage of disagreements among the regional circuits and district courts. The Federal Circuit, for its part, decided only one case before rendering the provision nearly useless 26 years ago in VE Holding.[2] For litigants forming enforcement strategies and defensive tactics, it's time to blow the dust off the old cases and figure out just what is a "place of business" and what makes it "regular and established."...