United States: Patent Venue At The Supreme Court

Patent Venue at the Supreme Court

If TC Heartland has its way, patent venue law is about to fundamentally change.

Factual Background

Kraft sued TC Heartland, a limited liability company organized under Indiana law, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Heartland is not registered to do business in Delaware and does not have any regular or established place of business there. However, a relatively small number of the allegedly infringing products (roughly 2% of Heartland's total sales) were shipped into Delaware at the instruction of one of Heartland's customers, a customer based in Arkansas.

Heartland moved to dismiss or transfer the action, arguing (among other things) that under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) ("the patent venue statute") the District of Delaware was not "the judicial district where [Heartland] resides."1 Reading the patent venue statue alone, that argument plainly prevails—Heartland does not reside in Delaware, and (while it allegedly has committed acts of infringement in Delaware) it does not have a regular and established place of business there. But, in 1990, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the definition of residence found in "the general venue statute," 28 U.S.C. § 1391—a more expansive venue provision—should be read to supplement the patent venue statute.2 VE Holding Corp. v. Johnson Gas Appliance Co., 917 F.2d 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1990). Relying on the VE Holding decision, the district court denied Heartland's motion.

Heartland then petitioned the Federal Circuit for a writ of mandamus, but was told in no uncertain terms that Congress, by its statutory amendments in 1988, inserted the general venue statute's definition of where a defendant "resides" into the specific patent venue statute.3

Heartland's petition to the Supreme Court for certiorari followed.

Commentary on Heartland's Petition for Certiorari

Heartland's briefing below seemed a rather scattershot approach. And, while Heartland now modestly streamlines its argument, the argument still retains a non-linearity that serves to dilute its impact. But, condensed to a more direct approach, it might be convincing enough for Supreme Court review.

A Condensed Heartland Argument

Heartland's best, most straightforward explication of its facts and argument would be as follows: First, prior to 1897, there was only a general venue statute.

Second, specifically to limit where patent suits may be brought, Congress enacted a statute limiting venue in a patent case to either (i) the district of which the defendant is an inhabitant or (ii) any district in which the defendant shall have committed acts of infringement and have a regular and established place of business.4 The statute also authorized service of process in patent infringement cases in districts where the defendant is not an inhabitant, but only if the defendant has therein a regular and established place of business.

Third, in 1948, Congress codified this venue limitation as 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) and this service of process authorization as 28 U.S.C. § 1694. In so doing, Congress inserted the words "resides" and "resident" for the word "inhabitant" in those sections. Congress also codified a new 28 U.S.C. § 1391, headed "Venue generally," that states in subsection (c) that "A corporation may be sued in any judicial district in which it is incorporated or licensed to do business or is doing business, and such judicial district shall be regarded as the residence of such corporation for venue purposes."

Fourth, in 1955, in Transmirra Prods. Corp. v. Fourco Glass Co.,5 the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reversed the Southern District of New York's grant of Fourco's motion to dismiss for improper venue, reasoning that the "plain meaning of § 1400(b) and § 1391(c)" requires that the definition of corporate residence be incorporated into § 1400(b) "just as that definition is properly to be incorporated into other sections of the venue chapter."6 The United States Supreme Court granted review to consider "whether 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) is the sole and exclusive provision governing venue in patent infringement actions, or whether that section is supplemented by 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)."7 The Court held the former because, inter alia, § 1400(b) stands alone as a specific venue statute that needs no supplementation from a more general statute.8

Fifth, in 1988, in one of a series amendments deemed by Congress to be "miscellaneous" and "minor,"9 Congress amended

§ 1391(c) to read: "For purposes of venue under this chapter, a defendant that is a corporation shall be deemed to reside in any judicial district in which it is subject to personal jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced."10 In effect, Congress moved the "for venue purposes" language to the front of the subsection and added the prepositional phrase "under this chapter." District courts reacted by treating it as Fourco said to treat its predecessor version—as not supplementing the specific patent venue statute—and noted that no congressional intent was showing in the statute or the legislative history to make a major change in law.11

Sixth, the Federal Circuit then erred in 1990, in VE Holding, by holding that the 1988 amendments made the drastic change in law to allow patent infringement defendants to be sued anywhere they sell allegedly infringing goods. The Federal Circuit ignored that the statutory language and the legislative history indicated no Congressional intent to drastically change the law and actually argued the reverse, that—given that the words changed—Congress did not indicate intent not to change the statute.

Venue Timeline

For clarity, the events above (and an additional 2011 Congressional amendment discussed below) are set forth in the following timeline:

Improving Heartland's Argument

Heartland's briefing might have been more convincing had it not separated, and argued late in its petition for certiorari, an additional statutory interpretation oversight by the Federal Circuit in VE Holding. Specifically, § 1400(b), both in 1990 and now, uses the definite article "the" when describing the jurisdiction in which the defendant resides: "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."12 Section 1391 does not provide a supplementation of "resides" that is appropriate here, as it was (and still is) not limited to a single jurisdiction ("any jurisdiction"). In fact, this difference begs the question as to why § 1400(b) limits venue to a single jurisdiction—and, the reason is telling. When the special patent venue statute was enacted in 1897, it was well-settled that "the domicile, the habitat, the residence, the citizenship of the corporation can only be in the State by which it was created, although it may do business in other States whose laws permit it."13 In other words, the "inhabitant" or "resident" of the patent venue statute already had (and has) a definition—it did not (and does not) need one to be imported from § 1391.

Heartland also would have been better served by stating in a more straightforward manner that the Federal Circuit was simply wrong in VE Holding. Congress's addition of "under this chapter," without more, does not render void the Supreme Court's holding in Fourco. Part-and-parcel of this mis-step, Heartland argues that amendments to § 1391 by Congress in 2011 reversed Congress' 1988 amendments. Specifically, Congress added a new § 1391(a), headed "Applicability of Section" that begins "Except as otherwise provided by law... (1) this section shall govern the venue of all civil actions brought in district courts in the United States." Heartland's argument apparently is that "except as otherwise provided by law" should embrace the reading "except as otherwise provided by Fourco."

There are four problems with this argument. First, it undercuts the previous (and best) one—Congress worked no significant change in 1988. And, different from the bland Congressional statements accompanying the 1988 amendments, Congress indicated in 2011 that proposed subsection 1391(c) is intended to apply to other codified venue provisions: "Under section 202 of the bill, proposed subsection 1391(c) would apply to all venue statutes, including venue provisions that appear elsewhere in the United States Code."14 Second, in the 2011 amendments, subsection (c) was also re-written with the heading "Residency—For all venue purposes—," to state "an entity with the capacity to sue and be sued in its common name under applicable law, whether or not incorporated, shall be deemed to reside, if a defendant, in any judicial district in which such defendant is subject to the court's personal jurisdiction with respect to the civil action in question"—a change which only serves to emphasize that this residency requirement was meant to apply throughout the chapter. And, Congress simultaneously folded former § 1391(d) (allowing suits against non-residents aliens in any judicial district) into this "residency" subsection. It has long been Supreme Court precedent that this subsection trumps (or is read into) § 1400(b).15 Third, "law" in this context is generally considered to refer to statutory law, and not to judicial precedent. Last, even if legal precedent were "law," it is not so clear logically (and chronologically) that the "law" should be the pre-1988 amendment Fourco decision, as opposed to the post-1988 amendment VE Holdings decision.

Heartland could have used this statutory language in a different, and more effective way. For example, Heartland could have focused more specifically on the beginning of new § 1391—"Except as otherwise provided by law... (1) this section shall govern the venue of all civil actions brought in district courts in the United States"—and argued that 1400(b) "governs the venue" of patent infringement actions "brought in district courts in the United States," and therefore "otherwise provide[s]." Therefore, § 1391 itself (without need to resort to the Congressional record) tells the reader that it does not apply—as a whole—to patent actions.

Heartland concludes its argument with the interesting, but possibly obfuscating, observation that the original 1897 patent service of process limitation, now 28 U.S.C. § 1694, is not a venue statute, and is therefore not supplemented by § 1391(c). Therefore, argues Heartland, if VE Holding and the Federal Circuit on mandamus are correct, a defendant may properly be haled under federal law into court in a jurisdiction in which it is not a resident, but service of process on that non-resident can only be made in that defendant's home jurisdiction, and only by relying on the long arm statute in the desired forum. Not entirely willing to give up one of its original complaints to the Federal Circuit, Heartland makes a bit of a hash of this observation, essentially arguing that this just seems too convoluted a procedure for it to have been Congress' intention.

Heartland also makes one additional argument—in throw-away fashion—that might have been given more emphasis. In the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act of 2011, a note to 35 U.S.C. § 321 provides: "In an action for infringement... of a covered business method patent, an automated teller machine shall not be deemed to be a regular and established place of business for purposes of section 1400(b) of title 28, United States Code."16 This note would make no sense if VE Holding were correctly decided: a corporate owner of an ATM would be deemed to reside wherever the use or operation of the machine infringes a patent, and it would make no difference whether the machine were deemed to be "a regular and established place of business."


While Heartland faces an uphill battle—overturning VE Holdings twenty-five years on—it very well may raise enough interesting issues, including both contradictory legal holdings and a confusing congressional record, to warrant Supreme

Court review.


1 28 U.S.C. § 1400 - Patents and copyrights, mask works, and designs

(b) 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.

2 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c) Residency.—For all venue purposes—

(2) an entity with the capacity to sue and be sued in its common name under applicable law, whether or not incorporated, shall be deemed to reside, if a defendant, in any judicial district in which such defendant is subject to the court's personal jurisdiction with respect to the civil action in question and, if a plaintiff, only in the judicial district in which it maintains its principal place of business....

(emphasis added).

3 In re TC Heartland, 821 F.3d 1338, 1341 (Fed. Cir. 2016) ("The arguments raised regarding venue have been firmly resolved by VE Holding, a settled precedent for over 25 years.").

4 Act of March 3, 1897, ch. 395, 29 Stat. 695 (1897).

5 233 F.2d 885 (2d Cir. 1956), rev'd 353 U.S. 222 (1957).

6 Id. at 886.

7 Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Prods. Corp., 353 U.S. 222, 222 (1957).

8 Id. at 229.

9 H.R. REP. NO. 100-89, at 66 (1988).

10 See Judicial Improvements and Access to Justice Act of 1988, Pub. L. No. 100-702, § 1013, 102 Stat. 4642, 4669 (1988).

11 See, e.g., Doelcher Prods. Inc. v. Hydrofoil Int'l, Inc., 735 F. Supp. 666, 668 (D. Md. 1989); accord Joslyun Mfg. Co. v. Amerace Corp., 729 F. Supp. 1219, 1223 (N.D. Ill. 1990).

12 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) (emphasis added).

13 Shaw v. Quincy Mining Co., 145 U.S. 444, 450 (1892) (emphasis added).

14 H.R. REP. NO. 112-10 at 20 (2011).

15 See generally Brunette Machine Works, Ltd., v. Kockum Indus., Inc., 406 U.S. 604 (1972).

16 Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L. No. 112-29 § 18(c), 129 Stat. 284, 331 (2011).

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions