Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 18 SEPTEMBER 2017

E.D. Texas's Loss Should Prove ITC's Gain

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP
Contributor
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP is one of the world’s largest firms focusing on...

View firm profile
Explore more from Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP

The Supreme Court's recent ruling in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, 137 S. Ct. 1514, 122 U.S.P.Q.2d 1553 (2017)...

United StatesIntellectual Property

The Supreme Court's recent ruling in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, 137 S. Ct. 1514, 122 U.S.P.Q.2d 1553 (2017), has quickly and dramatically reshaped the landscape for personal jurisdiction and venue in U.S. patent cases. As a result, the U.S. International Trade Commission, with its unique jurisdictional requirements, should now become an even busier forum for fast moving patent disputes.

In TC Heartland, the Supreme Court considered where proper venue lies for a patent infringement lawsuit brought against a domestic corporation. Id. at 1514-15. For many years, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has broadly construed the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), incorporating into its definition the general venue statute's broader statutory definition of corporate residence. 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a), (c); see also VE Holding Corp. v. Johnson Gas Appliance Co., 917 F.2d 1574, 16 U.S.P.Q.2d 1614 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The result has been a

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

See more popular content from