IP News

On Nov. 15, 2017, a Federal Circuit panel of Judges Taranto, Chen, and Hughes issued a unanimous decision, authored by Judge Taranto, in In Re: Micron Technology, Inc., Case No. 2017-138. The panel granted a petition for a writ of mandamus, setting aside a denial of a motion to dismiss or transfer for improper venue, by the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The Federal Circuit found that waiver under Rule 12(h)(1)(A) did not apply, vacated the district court's order, and remanded for consideration of whether there was forfeiture of a venue defense under the district court's discretionary powers.

In June 2016, President and Fellows of Harvard College filed a patent infringement suit against Micron Technology, Inc. (Micron) in the District of Massachusetts. Micron is incorporated in Delaware and has its principal place of business in Idaho. In May 2017, the Supreme Court held that “a domestic corporation 'resides' only in its State of incorporation for purposes of the patent venue statute.” TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, 137 S.Ct. 1514, 1517 (2017). After this decision, Micron moved to dismiss or to transfer the case for improper venue pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1406(a) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(3), because under this reasoning, it does not “reside” in Massachusetts. The district court rejected Micron's argument that TC Heartland was a change in law that made the Rule 12(h)(1)(A) waiver rule inapplicable. It denied Micron's motion because it had failed to object to venue when it filed a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) in August 2016.