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]...

Stay ahead of the curve

In the legal profession, information is the key to success. You have to know what’s happening with clients, competitors, practice areas, and industries. Law360 provides the intelligence you need to remain an expert and beat the competition.


  • Access to case data within articles (numbers, filings, courts, nature of suit, and more.)
  • Access to attached documents such as briefs, petitions, complaints, decisions, motions, etc.
  • Create custom alerts for specific article and case topics and so much more!

TRY LAW360 FREE FOR SEVEN DAYS

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!