Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 08 AUGUST 2018

Improper Venue For Web-Based Company In Light Of In Re Cray

Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.
Contributor
Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

Mintz is a litigation powerhouse and business accelerator serving leaders in life sciences, private...

View firm profile
Explore more from Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo, P.C.

In our continuing post-TC Heartland coverage, the District of Nevada recently identified a key factor in analyzing venue challenges in patent litigation

United StatesIntellectual Property

In our continuing post-TC Heartland coverage, the District of Nevada recently identified a key factor in analyzing venue challenges in patent litigation: whether the public can access the defendant corporation or its services in the respective forum. In this case, the defendant did not have any officers, directors, or employees based in Nevada – nor did it have any office, land, facilities, or sales in Nevada.

The court granted the defendant's motion to transfer for improper venue and rejected plaintiff's argument that In re Cray's three-part definition of "regular and established place of business" should not apply to web-based businesses. The Court concluded that in defining a regular and established business the "key inquiry is not whether physical objects are involved, but rather whether the public has access to the defendant corporation through an employee or office located in the district where a suit is brought or if the public directly accesses the services

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