On May 22, 2017 the U.S. Supreme Court unwound nearly 30 years of patent venue jurisprudence allowing domestic corporations to be sued for patent infringement in any judicial district in which the company does business. In TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Food Group Brands LLC, No. 16-341 (May 22, 2017), the high court held that a domestic corporation may only be sued for patent infringement in either (a) the company’s State of incorporation, or (b) where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business. In a unanimous 8-0 decision authored by Justice Clarence Thomas, the Supreme Court overruled long-standing Federal Circuit precedent interpreting the term “resides” in the patent venue statute—28 U.S.C. § 1400(b)—to include any judicial district in which the defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction and instead held that “a domestic corporation ‘resides’ only in the State of incorporation for purposes of the patent venue statute.” The implications of this decision are significant, as it likely means that fewer patent infringement lawsuits will be filed in certain plaintiff-friendly venues such as the Eastern District of Texas.

A Brief History Lesson -

Originally enacted in 1897, and last amended in 1948, the patent venue statute provides that venue is proper either: (1) “in the judicial district where the defendant resides,” or (2) “where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business.” 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). Unfortunately, Congress failed to define the term “resides.” Under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)—a separate statute governing venue in civil actions generally—a corporation is deemed to be a resident of “any judicial district in which such defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction . . . .” Yet, controlling Supreme Court precedent, Fourco Glass Company v. Transmirra Products Corporation, 353 U.S. 222, 229 (1957), for many years held that § 1400(b) is the sole and exclusive provision governing venue in patent infringement actions. It further interpreted the term “resides” to mean the corporation’s State of incorporation only.