Blog March 23, 2020
Corporate Residence Definition in Patent Cases Unchanged by Congressional Revisions to Venue Statute; Minimum Contacts Under Beverly Hills Fan Reaffirmed
- Person title
In re TC Heartland LLC, __ F.3d __ (Fed. Cir. Apr. 29, 2016) (MOORE, Linn, Wallach) (D. Del.: Stark)
Fed Cir denies petition for writ of mandamus that sought to require the district court to dismiss or transfer Delaware litigation against Indiana-based defendant, reaffirming VE Holding and Beverly Hills Fan as to corporate residence and specific jurisdiction, respectively.
VENUE: Fed Cir declines to reverse holding that TC Heartland "resides" in Delaware for venue purposes. TC Heartland had no Delaware business registration or offices but occasionally shipped accused products into Delaware. Under VE Holding Corp. v. Johnson Gas Appliance Corp., 917 F.2d 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1990), such activity was sufficient to establish venue under the general venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391.
Prior to VE Holding, "residence" for venue purposes in patent cases was held to mean the state of a defendant's incorporation. But the Judicial Improvements and Access to Justice Act, Pub. L. No. 100-702, 102 Stat. 4642, 4669 (1988), revised § 1391 in such a way that the definition of "residence" for venue purposes in patent cases changed. VE Holding held that venue in patent cases, as in other cases, would be appropriate in any district where the defendant was subject to personal jurisdiction at the time the suit was commenced. 917 F.2d at 1584.
TC Heartlands' argument, which the Fed Cir rejected, was that amendments to the venue statute in the Federal Courts Jurisdiction and Venue Clarification Act of 2011, Pub. L. No. 112-63, 125 Stat. 758 (2011), had abrogated VE Holding and restored the status quo ante. TC Heartland argued that these amendments essentially codified the 1957 Supreme Court decision Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Products Corp., 353 U.S. 222 (1957), which had governed venue in patent cases pre-VE Holding. Rejecting that argument, the Fed Cir held that Congress's 2011 addition of the phrase "except as otherwise provided by law" to § 1391, even if such a statement could invoke prior Supreme Court cases, would not in any event invoke Fourco, as Fourco had been superseded by earlier Congressional action and was not legally operative. As a result, VE Holding remained settled precedent and confirmed the propriety of venue in Delaware.
SPECIFIC PERSONAL JURISDICTION: Fed Cir rejects TC Heartland's specific jurisdiction arguments that the footnote in the Supreme Court's recent decision in Walden v. Fiore, 134 S. Ct. 1115, 1121 n.6 (2014), overturned the minimum contacts requirement set forth in Beverly Hills Fan, 21 F.3d 1558. The opinion reaffirms that a district court in a patent infringement action with personal jurisdiction over one alleged act of patent infringement has jurisdiction over all such acts nationwide. In other words, a forum state can hear claims for infringing acts occurring outside of the forum state. This approach is consistent with the due process requirement that a forum's assertion of jurisdiction be reasonable, because allowing a plaintiff to seek redress in a single forum state spares other states the burden of also having to provide such a forum and protects defendants from being harassed with multiple infringement suits. As to TC Heartland's infringing acts in Delaware, TC Heartland did not dispute that it shipped the accused product directly into Delaware and thus satisfied the minimum contacts required under Beverly Hills Fan.
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 November 4, 2019
Legal Alert | Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. — What Did the Federal Circuit Do?
Blog August 17, 2018
En Banc Federal Circuit: Patentee's Service of Complaint, Followed by Voluntary Dismissal, Triggers IPR Clock
Blog October 5, 2017
Legal Alert: Federal Circuit Faults PTO's Approach to Claim Amendments During IPR, But Allows PTO to Try to Fix the Problem
Blog May 16, 2016
Software Claims Directed to Specific Improvements in Computer Operations May be "Non-Abstract"
Blog April 11, 2016
Claims Directed to Detection of Gene Variants Patent-Ineligible, Notwithstanding Mental Activity Requirement
Blog July 27, 2015
Judicial Review Available for Decision that a Patent Qualified for CBM Review; § 101 Review Appropriate in CBM Review
Blog July 8, 2015
Software Claim Addressing Concepts Long Known in Other Fields and Lacking Other Inventive Concept Is Not Patent Eligible
Blog June 18, 2015
Ordered Method Claim Does Not Bar Partly-Simultaneous Performance of Steps
Blog June 17, 2015
Claims Covering Basic Detection of Naturally-Occurring Compound, However Scientifically Significant, Not Patent Eligible
Blog December 4, 2023
Amended FRE 702 on Expert Testimony Effective December 1, 2023
Blog December 1, 2023
ITC Monthly Wrap-Up: November 2023
Blog November 27, 2023
Minnesota Patent Litigation Wrap-Up: Q3 2023
Blog November 15, 2023
ITC Monthly Wrap-Up: October 2023
Blog November 9, 2023
Legal Alert: FTC Challenges More Than 100 Patents as Improperly Listed in Orange Book
Blog November 3, 2023
District of Delaware Finds Allergan Patents Invalid for Lack of Written Description and Obviousness-Type Double Patenting in Allergan v. MSN Labs
Blog October 31, 2023
Texas Patent Litigation Monthly Wrap-Up: October 2023
Blog October 30, 2023
District of Delaware Finds Non-Orange Book-Listed Patents Subject to the Same Pleading Standard as Listed Patents in ANDA Infringement Suit
Blog October 11, 2023
ITC Monthly Wrap-Up: September 2023
Blog September 25, 2023
Federal Circuit Evaluates Enablement for Antibody Claims for the First Time Since Amgen v. Sanofi in Baxalta Inc. et al. v. Genentech, Inc.