The United States Supreme Court limited the locations where patent infringement suits can be filed, in its decision in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC on May 22, 2017.  Previously, patent owners could sue wherever they could get jurisdiction over a defendant.  As a result, certain federal district courts that were considered friendly to patent owners became hot locales for patent infringement cases.  For example, approximately 35 percent of patent infringement cases have been filed in recent years in a single district, the Eastern District of Texas.  The Supreme Court ruled in TC Heartland that a defendant resides, for purposes of defending a patent infringement suit, only in its state of incorporation.  This ruling will limit venue to districts where the defendant is incorporated or has a regular and established place of business and also infringes.

The patent venue statute has stated that patent venue is proper in a district where the defendant resides or has a regular and established place of business and has infringed the patent.  The statute, however, was interpreted to mean a defendant resides wherever it is subject to personal jurisdiction.  Since many defendants sell products nationwide, patent owners had little trouble finding infringing sales in those judicial districts popular among patent owners.  The practice was especially prevalent among non-practicing patent owners, pejoratively called “trolls.”  (Ironically, the TC Heartland case did not involve a non-practicing entity.)  Now, patent owners will have less choice of where to file a lawsuit.  One likely result will be many more patent infringement suits in the District of Delaware, which was already the second most popular spot for patent infringement.  The large number of companies incorporated in Delaware will inevitably lead to more cases being filed there.