Supreme Court Turns Back the Clock on Venue In Patent Infringement Litigation

Meaning of 'Residence'

Since 1990, corporate defendants could be sued for patent infringement wherever they were subject to personal jurisdiction. This trend began when the Federal Circuit expanded the availability of venue in patent infringement cases in VE Holding by ruling that the general venue statute 28 U.S.C. §1391(c) as amended in 1988 redefined “resides” in the patent venue statute §1400(b) so that a corporate defendant was deemed to reside wherever it is subject to personal jurisdiction. See, VE Holding Corp. v. Johnson Gas Appliance Co., 917 F.2d 1574 (1990). Prior to VE Holding, however, a corporate defendant resided only in its state of incorporation for purposes of the patent venue statute. The impact of the VE Holding decision was significant, and by 2015 more than 50% of all patent cases filed in the United States were brought in just two district courts: the Eastern District of Texas and the District of Delaware. Brief for Petitioner, at 15. In TC Heartland, however, the Supreme Court reined back in the meaning of a corporate defendant's “residence” to its pre-VE Holding scope. But, given §1400(b)'s alternative venue prescription of wherever a defendant has “committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business,” only time will tell what practical effect that restriction will have on the scope of proper venue in patent infringement cases.