Federal Circuit Recently Established New Test For Establishing Patent Venue
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently established a new test for determining whether a corporation has a “regular and established place of business” for the purposes of establishing patent venue.
The patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), provides that patent infringement actions “may be brought in the judicial district where the defendant resides, or where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business.” If the venue is not proper, a defendant may move to dismiss the case or transfer it to a district in which the case could have been originally brought.
In TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods Group Brands, 581 U. S. (2017), the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the first prong, holding that “a domestic corporation ‘resides’ only in its state of incorporation for purposes of the patent venue statute.” The Court’s decision reversed a long-standing Federal Circuit holding that a corporation is deemed to be a resident of any judicial district in which such defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction.
Federal Circuit
In June of 2017, In Raytheon Corp. v. Cray, Inc., Judge Rodney Gilstrap of the Eastern District of Texas denied a motion to transfer venue. In reaching his decision, Judge Gilstrap established a multi-factor test for determining what constitutes a “regular and established place of business” under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). The factors included: (1) physical presence in the district; (2) defendant’s representations regarding a presence in the district; (3) benefits received from its presence in the district; and (4) targeted interactions with persons or entities in the district.
Cray, Inc. appealed the ruling via a writ of mandamus to the Federal Circuit. The federal appeals court granted the writ of mandamus and concluded, in a recent opinion, that venue was improper in the Eastern District of Texas. In rejecting the district court’s test for determining what qualifies as a “regular and established place of business,” the court wrote:
The statutory language we need to interpret is “where the defendant . . . has a regular and established place of business.” 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). The noun in this phrase is “place,” and “regular” and “established” are adjectives modifying the noun “place.” The following words, “of business,” indicate the nature and purpose of the “place,” and the preceding words, “the defendant,” indicate that it must be that of the defendant. Thus, § 1400(b) requires that “a defendant has” a “place of business” that is “regular” and “established.” All of these requirements must be present. The district court’s four-factor test is not sufficiently tethered to this statutory language and thus it fails to inform each of the necessary requirements of the statute.
In place of the district court’s test, the Federal Circuit crafted its own legal standard. Its three-pronged test includes the following requirements: (1) there must be a physical place in the district; (2) it must be a regular and established place of business; and (3) it must be the place of the defendant. If any statutory requirement is not satisfied, the venue is improper under § 1400(b).
In this case, the Federal Circuit held that the district court erred in denying the motion to transfer since Cray did not have a regular and established place of business in the Eastern District of Texas. Cray is a Washington corporation which allowed two individuals to work remotely from their homes in Texas. The court found that Cray did not own, rent or lease the homes of these individuals, had not selected the locations of the homes, did not store products or literature in these homes, nor was there a showing that Cray intended to maintain a place of business there, should the two individuals move out of the district.
IP Infringement: What Steps Can You Take If You're Affected?
IP infringement occurs when someone uses your intellectual property without your permission or beyond the scope of the permission you granted. Common examples of IP infringement include copying a product’s patented features or using a trademarked logo in a way that is likely to confuse consumers about the source or affiliation of goods or services. […]
Public Allegations, Unfinished Investigation: What New Jersey Businesses Should Do Next
When facing public allegations of wrongdoing, companies should not let the speed of the public conversation dictate the speed of an investigation. An investigation designed to confirm a preferred narrative rather than establish the facts can create serious problems later, particularly if litigation, regulatory scrutiny, or employment claims follow. Key Takeaways When public allegations surface […]
BESS Interconnection: Managing Grid, Cost, and Schedule Risk
For battery energy storage system (BESS) developers, securing equipment and site control is only part of the development equation. A project must also connect to the electric grid, and increasingly, BESS interconnection is one of the biggest sources of schedule, cost, and contractual risk. Key Takeaways This article is Part 3 of our Battery Storage […]
Navigating Director and Officer Liability in Times of Financial Distress
Director and officer liability increases sharply when a company is in financial distress. Decisions that would draw little attention in a healthy business can later be challenged by creditors, shareholders, bankruptcy trustees, and regulators as breaches of fiduciary duty, fraudulent transfers, or oversight failures. Understanding where that exposure comes from, and how to manage it, […]
Before You Buy: Managing Real Estate and Permitting Risk for BESS Projects in New York and New Jersey
For developers pursuing battery energy storage system (BESS) projects, finding the right property is only the beginning. BESS site selection is as much a legal and transactional exercise as a real estate decision, with risk analysis central to the project’s ultimate success. Key Takeaways The core questions for BESS site selection in New York and […]
What Business Owners Get Wrong Before Meeting a Litigation Attorney
What should you expect when meeting a litigation attorney about a business dispute? You should expect to describe the dispute in your own words, hand over the most important documents, flag any deadlines or immediate threats, and leave with a clearer picture of the problem, what information is still needed, and the likely next steps. […]
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court.
Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal
circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!
