Article March 31, 2022
California Court Confirms that Venue Does Not Require a Nexus Between an "Act of Infringement" and a "Regular and Established Place of Business"
- Person title
- Of Counsel
In Genentech, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Co., 18-cv-1518 JLS (JLB) (S.D. Cal.), the California district court denied Lilly's motion to dismiss for improper venue under the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). Opinion, Sept. 12, 2019. Under the second prong of section 1400(b), venue is proper in any district where the defendant has committed an act of infringement and has a regular and established place of business. There was no dispute that Lilly had a regular and established place of business in the district. After holding that Lilly had committed an act of infringement in the district, the court addressed Lilly's argument that the action should be dismissed because Genentech failed to allege the "required nexus between [the] alleged acts of infringement and the established place of business." Id. at 5. As the court summarized:
According to Defendant, it is not enough that Plaintiff alleges both elements [of section 1400(b)] instead, Plaintiff must allege acts of infringement that are related to the established place of business.
Id. (emphasis in original).
In support, Lilly argued that the underlying policy of the patent venue statue, its legislative history, and two district court decisions supported its position. Id. at 5 (citing Jeffrey Galion, Inc. v. Joy Mfg. Co., 323 F. Supp. 261 (N.D.W. Va. 1971); Scaramucci v. FMC Corp., 258 F. Supp. 598 (W.D. Okla. 1966)).
The court denied Lilly's motion, noting that "the plain language of section 1400(b) contains no nexus requirement," id. at 6, and "[t]he vast majority of courts that have addressed the issue . . . have declined to read into the statute any nexus requirement." Id. at 5-6 (citing Seven Networks v. Google LLC, 315 F. Supp. 3d 933, 942 (E.D. Tex. 2018) ("This Court therefore rejects [the] proposition that [§ 1400(b)] requires that alleged acts of infringement by the Defendant pled to meet the requirements of § 1400(b) must be âtied to or related to' the regular and established place of business of the Defendant."); Plexxikon Inc. v. Novartis Pharm. Corp., No. 17-CV-04405-HSG, 2017 WL 6389674, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 7, 2017) ('The Court . . . concludes that the plain language of the statute does not include a nexus requirement.'); Am. Can Co. v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., 433 F. Supp. 333, 336 (E.D. Wis. 1977) ("[Section 1400(b)] requires only that the defendant have committed acts of infringement in the district and have a regular and established place of business there; there is no requirement that the two factors be related.")).
One might think that the court's decision was a forgone conclusion, but the dispute indicates that plaintiffs may still face similar motions challenging venue.
The opinions expressed are those of the authors on the date noted above and do not necessarily reflect the views of Fish & Richardson P.C., any other of its lawyers, its clients, or any of its or their respective affiliates. This post is for general information purposes only and is not intended to be and should not be taken as legal advice. No attorney-client relationship is formed.
Blog January 19, 2022
REGENXBIO v. SAREPTA: Make Sure You're Safely Within the Safe Harbor Before Using a "Research Tool"
Blog June 4, 2021
Users of Research Tools Take Note
Blog August 5, 2020
Attorneys for Branded Companies Should Carefully Review ANDAs for Admissions Regarding Generic Infringement
Blog June 26, 2020
First Circuit Finds Device Patent Improperly Listed in the Orange Book
Blog June 4, 2020
Generic Drug Labeling and Induced Patent Infringement
Blog May 12, 2020
Prodrugs — Federal Circuit Holds That A PTE Does Not Cover Their Metabolites
Blog April 28, 2020
Potential Ways for Avoiding the Presumption of Prosecution History Estoppel of an Allowable Dependent Claim Depending from a Rejected Independent Claim
Blog November 22, 2019
Ensnarement Defense To Doctrine of Equivalents Succeeds On Summary Judgment
Article October 29, 2019
Brian Coggio Co-Authors Article in IP Litigator, "The Doctrine of Equivalents and Its Limitations, Including 'Ensnarement,' a Particularly Potent Defense"
Blog March 2, 2023
Texas Patent Litigation Monthly Wrap-Up: February 2023
Blog February 10, 2023
President Biden Signs "Protecting American Intellectual Property Act of 2022" Into Law
Blog February 10, 2023
Texas Patent Litigation Monthly Wrap-Up: January 2023
Blog February 7, 2023
ITC Monthly Wrap-Up: January 2023
Blog January 17, 2023
Minnesota Patent Litigation Wrap-Up: Q4 2022
Blog January 17, 2023
Biosimilars 2022 Year in Review
Article January 4, 2023
Attorneys Daniel Tishman and Joshua Rosefelt Author "ITC Year in Review" Article in IPWatchdog
Blog January 4, 2023
Texas Patent Litigation Monthly Wrap-Up: December 2022
Blog January 3, 2023
ITC Monthly Wrap-Up: December 2022
Article December 27, 2022
Senior Principal John Dragseth Authors IPWatchdog Article "Top Federal Circuit Decisions of 2022 That No One Told You About"