Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
IP News
Federal Circuit Resolves Circuit Split, Finds That Venue Is Not Waived Under Rule 12(h)(1)(A) for Cases Brought before TC HeartLand
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.
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.
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.
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?