United States: Patent Venue After TC Heartland: Where Do We Go From Here?

Last Updated: May 31 2017
Article by Amy M. Pepke and Clifford Ragsdale Lamar II

In an unanimous 8-0 decision, the Supreme Court struck down nearly 30 years of Federal Circuit patent venue jurisprudence that built on the view that the general venue statute (28 U.S.C. § 1391) controlled the patent venue statute (28 U.S.C. § 1400(b)) in the context of domestic corporate patent infringement defendants.  TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, (U.S. May 22, 2017) (No. 16-341).

Background for the Decision

TC Heartland is a limited liability company organized and headquartered in the state of Indiana, and it directly competes with Kraft in the field of flavored drink enhancer products.  Important for this case, TC Heartland is not incorporated in, it does not have a regular and established place of business in, and it is not registered to conduct business in Delaware.  Kraft is incorporated in Delaware, but has its principal place of business in Illinois.  Kraft brought a patent infringement action against TC Heartland in Delaware relying on personal jurisdiction in that state as the basis for venue under the general venue statute, which provides in relevant part, that a corporation "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."  § 1391(c) (emphasis added).  TC Heartland challenged venue as improper under the Supreme Court's previous decision in Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Products Corp. (U.S. 1957).

The Fourco decision held that § 1400(b) is the "sole and exclusive provision controlling venue in patent infringement actions," and that it is not supplemented in any way by § 1391(c).  § 1400(b) lays venue where the "defendant resides, or where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business".  In 1990, the Federal Circuit held in VE Holding that Congress's additions (underlined) in the phrase "[f]or all venue purposes under this chapter" of § 1391 provided the definition of "resides" in § 1400(b) for corporate defendants, thereby effectively superseding the Fourco decision.  The Supreme Court denied the Petition for Certiorari in VE Holding, and the rule we are all familiar with took root.  Congress amended § 1391 once again in 2011, now inserting in § 1391(a) the phrase "[e]xcept as otherwise provided by law" while also removing the phrase "under this chapter."  Importantly, the text of § 1400(b) has remained unchanged since 1948, and Congress has made no explicit indication of superseding Fourco or adopting the rule in VE Holding.  The district court and Federal Circuit both rejected TC Heartland's venue challenge, citing to VE Holding Corp. v. Johnson Gas Appliance Co. (Fed. Cir. 1990).  The Supreme Court granted TC Heartland's Petition for Certiorari with a question presented nearly identical to that reviewed in Fourco.

Holding:  A domestic corporation "resides" only in its state of incorporation for purposes of the patent venue statute.

In what may appear to be routine to many an observer, the Supreme Court has reversed another long-standing Federal Circuit decision.  Justice Thomas, writing for the Court, rather forcefully reminded the Federal Circuit that the decision in Fourco "definitively and unambiguously" defined the word "reside" in § 1400(b) as having a particular meaning as the state of incorporation of a corporation.  Later decisions would whittle this down to only "domestic corporations," but the Court's holding remained the foundation for interpretation of the patent venue statute until 1990.  Justice Thomas then quoted the late Justice Scalia for the principle that "clear, authoritative judicial holding[s]" should not be "cast in doubt" merely because a related or unrelated statute is amended and Congress gives no "clear indication" of an intent to supersede those judicial holdings.

While Kraft argued that the history of amendments to § 1391 supported the federal Circuit's rule in VE Holding, the Court rejected this position based on the very language of the amendments relied upon by Kraft and the Federal Circuit.  First, and importantly, Congress never amended § 1400(b).  Second, § 1391's "default provision" (i.e., "for all venue purposes") is nearly identical to the one it contained in 1957 at the time Fourco was decided, where only "all" has been added.  Justice Thomas opined that "all" does not render the phrase materially different.  Third, the 2011 amendments to § 1391 includes a "savings clause" that explicitly qualifies the application of that entire section where "otherwise provided by law."  Finally, the Court found that the deletion of the phrase "under this chapter," the primary language relied upon by the Federal Circuit in the VE Holding decision, further undermined Kraft's argument that Congress had superseded Fourco.

Practice Note:

In summary, the Court looked to statutory construction principles, and ruled that the Federal Circuit had yet again erred and led the bar astray.  Interestingly, the decision mentions nothing of the political climate of 1990 and majority of amici that the VE Holding appeal was the proper vehicle for the Federal Circuit to correct the then perceived "patent venue problem."  Fast forward 30 years, and the amici briefs all blame the Federal Circuit for creating a patent venue problem.  Ultimately, the Supreme Court has the sole prerogative in the judicial branch to overturn its own precedent, and the Federal Circuit may now be slow to read any implicit action by Congress in patent matters that it, arguably, has expertise.

Venue challenges in currently pending cases – What can/should I do now?

That depends. Many practitioners had their eyes on TC Heartland for months and have included objections to venue in their responsive pleadings or filed motions to dismiss on that basis.  If you are among this group, immediate action to move to dismiss if you have not done so, or renew and supplement a previously filed motion, is the obvious course of action.  However, if venue has not been challenged or preserved prior to the decision, or if the original objection has not been pursued despite the passage of significant time, the road forward is less clear.  Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(1) provides that a defendant waives the right to challenge venue if the objection is not raised in a responsive pleading or preserved in a Rule 12 motion to dismiss.  If the case falls into this category, one might consider moving to amend the response to assert the affirmative defense of lack of venue pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15.  In these circumstances, Rule 15 allows amendment 21 days after service of the pleading, or "with the opposing party's written consent or the court's leave." Notably, Rule 15 provides that the "court should freely give leave when justice so requires." Fed.R.Civ.Pro. 15(a)(2).  The Supreme Court's recent reversal of nearly thirty years of Federal Circuit precedent in TC Heartland might just provide a suitable basis for invoking such relief.  That decision will turn on the relevant jurisprudence within the circuit, but care should be taken in framing the issue.  Notably, the Court's opinion makes clear that its Fourco decision, decided in 1957, was and remains good law – the Federal Circuit has had it wrong for nearly three decades.  Arguably then, TC Heartland did not create new law but rather affirmed long-standing precedent that had been misapplied by the Federal Circuit.  Any argument for invoking a district court's discretion to allow an amendment, should focus on the Court's discussion of the 2012 amendments to § 1391 while also emphasizing the decades of Federal Circuit law that would have made an objection to venue seemingly impractical and legally unsound.

Patent Infringement Venue Going Forward

In the wake of the Federal Circuit's 1990 decision in VE Holding, patentees could obtain venue against domestic corporations in any district where the defendant had minimum contacts.  Due to its perception as a particularly patentee-friendly venue, the Eastern District of Texas has captured the majority of recent patent litigation filings in the U.S., seeing between 35% to 44% of the total volume per year.  The District of Delaware consistently remained a distant second with slightly over 10% of the cases.  The Court's decision in TC Heartland will unavoidably shift those percentages substantially.

For domestic corporations, patent infringement cases must now be filed only where defendant is incorporated, or "where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business."  According to the Delaware Division of Corporations 2015 Annual Report, well over 1 million entities are incorporated there, including more than 50 percent of publically traded companies in the U.S. and more than 60 percent of Fortune 500 companies.  Venue will be proper in Delaware for each of these entities.  While Delaware is generally not perceived as an overly patentee-friendly jurisdiction, the district maintains a strong and experienced judicial bench with well-developed patent jurisprudence, as well as a number of patentee-verdicts that rival those of the Eastern District of Texas.  Thus, it will remain a solid option for patent litigation, and will likely to see a significant increase in cases going forward.

Venue for defendants other than "domestic corporations" – What about the rest of us?

While not discussed in the opinion, venue in patent infringement actions involving "foreign corporations" are still subject to § 1391 by virtue of the Supreme Court's opinion in Brunette Machine Works, Ltd. v. Kochum Industries, Inc. (U.S. 1972).  Therefore, any foreign defendants, who necessarily do not "reside" in any district of the U.S., will not see much difference in strategy as a result of TC Heartland.  Where a U.S. subsidiary is also named in a patent infringement suit, the foreign defendant may be able to join a motion for transfer of venue for convenience if venue is originally set outside of the subsidiaries "residence" venue.

Another issue that was not addressed by the Court in TC Heartland is whether § 1400 or § 1391 applies to domestic non-corporate commercial entities, such as LLCs and partnerships.  During oral arguments, the issue was raised as a means for the Court to stand on improvidently granting certiorari in the case due to TC Heartland not actually being a "domestic corporation;" it is in fact a limited liability company.  The Court punts on this issue in footnote 1, notably because Kraft pleaded that TC Heartland was a corporation in its Complaint and TC Heartland did not deny this fact.  TC Heartland argued to the Court that LLCs are organized under the laws of its "resident" state, the same as a domestic corporation, so the Fourco rule meant for corporations should apply.  However, the remand to the district court, which is set for trial, will now have to determine whether a non-corporate commercial entity is even subject to the holding as a matter of first impression on facts that were not developed to address this issue.  With so many operating companies organized as LLCs, the remand and subsequent litigation in this space will be very important, and could potentially set patent venue for this subset of defendants back in the realm of § 1391.

Venue and Declaratory Judgment actions – What does TC Heartland mean for forum shopping by the accused infringer?

After the AIA was implemented, declaratory judgment actions filed by accused infringers noticeably dropped.  This is largely due to the AIA bar on post-grant review proceedings in the USPTO if a petitioner first files a declaratory judgment action seeking to invalidate a patent in court.  While there may be instances where an IPR or other post-grant review procedure is not good strategy at the outset of a dispute, many practitioners have resorted to filing declaratory judgment actions that only seek a ruling of non-infringement.  Technically, this would leave the door open to a later IPR, even where the declaratory judgment pleads invalidity as affirmative defenses in answer to a counterclaim of infringement by the patentee.  Of course, one of the primary reasons given for filing a declaratory judgment is forum shopping:  either to strike first to get in the home forum, or to at least not end up in a forum they perceive to be a liability.  With the TC Heartland decision, at least for domestic corporations in nascent patent disputes, the likelihood of being in a forum of their state of incorporation just got a lot smaller.  Thus, the TC Heartland decision may lead to even fewer declaratory judgment actions as patentee's choices of proper venue has been dramatically reduced.

It is important to note that § 1400(b) does have a second clause not at issue in the TC Heartland decision that provides for venue to lie where a defendant has a regular and established place of business and has committed acts of infringement.  Due to the expansive personal jurisdiction equals venue holding of VE Holding, this clause has become stale, but it may soon be the primarily litigated statutory language concerning venue as NPEs and patentees strive for a way to maintain cases in their favorite courts.

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
Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please 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