Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Patent Infringement
Although TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, No. 16-341 (May 22, 2017), answers the question of where a domestic corporation resides in patent infringement cases, it does not fully answer the question of where proper venue lies. In a move that many patent litigators had anticipated, the Supreme Court dispensed with the venue option of suing a corporate defendant wherever it could be subject to personal jurisdiction. Now, for purposes of venue in patent lawsuits, corporate defendants reside only in the state of incorporation. But that does not necessarily mean that venue is not proper for corporate defendants outside their state of incorporation. Whereas before, venue was largely taken for granted, the threshold issue of venue and whether a defendant has a “regular and established place of business” is likely to take on a much more prominent role in patent litigation following TC Heartland.
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.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.