Tag Archives: Venue

TC Heartland: Supreme Court Makes Venue Shopping More Difficult for Patent Trolls

Author: Lily Lim
Editor: Lillian M. Robinson

In the highly anticipated case on patent-venue shopping, TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, No. 16-341 (S. Ct. May 22, 2017), the Supreme Court reversed and remanded the decision of the Federal Circuit, putting a stop to an interpretation of the venue statutes that had allowed patent trolls and plaintiffs to bring their cases in plaintiff-friendly venues as opposed to where the defendant resided.  Continue reading

Tagged , , ,

Federal Circuit Trends of 2016

Authors: Alissa Lipton, Eric Raciti
Editor: Lauren J. Dreyer

Join us as we review what has been an exciting year at the Federal Circuit and help ring in 2017 with a New Year’s reception at Finnegan’s Boston office on Wednesday, January 11, 2017! We will provide insights on the top Federal Circuit decisions and trends of 2016.

Below, we highlight some of the issues we will discuss on January 11:
Continue reading

Tagged , ,

No Change to Patent Venue Law

Author: Lauren J. Dreyer
Editor: Aaron Gleaton Clay

In In re TC Heartland LLC, No. 2016-105 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 29, 2016), the Federal Circuit denied TC Heartland LLC’s petition for a writ of mandamus that would have directed the Delaware district court to dismiss or transfer the case based on lack of personal jurisdiction or improper venue.

The Court rejected the argument that Congress’s 2011 amendments to the general venue statute effectively overruled the Court’s precedent in VE Holding Corp. v. Johnson Gas Appliance Co., 917 F.2d 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1990). It held that when Congress changed the venue statute from “For the purposes of venue under this chapter” to “For all venue purposes,” it broadened the definition of corporate residence, not narrowed it. The Court also rejected Heartland’s argument that the Delaware district court lacked specific personal jurisdiction over Heartland, an Indiana company headquartered in Indiana. Instead, it held that its precedent in Beverly Hills Fan Co. v. Royal Sovereign Corp., 21 F.3d 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1994), applied because, as in that case, Heartland admittedly shipped orders of the accused products directly to Delaware. The Court also noted that Heartland did not dispute that the infringement claims arose out of or related to those shipments.

Continue reading

Tagged , ,