Improper Venue

  • [Not Covered, Generally.] “Any civil action for patent infringement 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.” 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). See TC Heartland (U.S. 05/22/2017) (“a domestic corporation ‘resides’ only in its State of incorporation for purposes of the patent venue statute.”); In re Cray (Fed. Cir. 09/21/17) (no “regular and established place of business” in EDTX where sales executive worked from home in District but had no products or sales literature in home; “three general requirements relevant to the inquiry: (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.”); In re Micron Tech. (Fed. Cir. 11/15/17) (TC Heartland was a change in the law such that the venue objection previously was not “available to” the defendant and its failure to include venue in its motion to dismiss did not waive that defense, but remanding for trial court to determine if otherwise waived). ; In re ZTE (Fed. Cir. 05/14/18) (holding that when a defendant moves to challenge venue in a patent case, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing proper venue); In re HTC Corp. (Fed. Cir. 05/09/18) (order denying writ of mandamus; determining 1400(b) does not apply to aliens).
  • (Other Defenses) TIPS: