Reviving 'Regular And Established Place Of Biz' Case Law

By Ron Vogel and Brian Coggio (June 12, 2017, 1:28 PM EDT) -- On May 22, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Federal Circuit's decision in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC[1] and held that the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), is the exclusive law controlling venue in patent infringement cases. Significantly, that section is not supplemented by the general venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c). TC Heartland overruled a 25-year-old decision, VE Holding Corp. v. Johnson Gas Appliance Co.,[2] in which the Federal Circuit effectively collapsed patent venue into a personal jurisdiction analysis. The TC Heartland court thus restored the meaning of § 1400(b) as interpreted by its earlier holding in Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Products Corp.[3] Practitioners can harken back to the halcyon days of 1957, when, as now, a patent lawsuit was proper only in the district where the defendant: (1) resided (meaning its state of incorporation), or (2) where the defendant "had committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business."[4]...

Law360 is on it, so you are, too.

A Law360 subscription puts you at the center of fast-moving legal issues, trends and developments so you can act with speed and confidence. Over 200 articles are published daily across more than 60 topics, industries, practice areas and jurisdictions.

A Law360 subscription includes features such as

  • Daily newsletters
  • Expert analysis
  • Mobile app
  • Advanced search
  • Judge information
  • Real-time alerts
  • 450K+ searchable archived articles

And more!

Experience Law360 today with a free 7-day trial.

Start Free Trial

Already a subscriber? Click here to login

Hello! I'm Law360's automated support bot.

How can I help you today?

For example, you can type:
  • I forgot my password
  • I took a free trial but didn't get a verification email
  • How do I sign up for a newsletter?
Ask a question!