United States: Supreme Court Limits The Reach Of Patent Venue, Forecasting Big Changes To Patent Litigation Landscape

On May 22, 2017, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC,1 a closely watched patent venue case that promises to alter the geographic landscape of patent litigation across the United States.

In an 8-0 opinion by Justice Thomas,2 the Court determined that for purposes of the patent venue statute a corporation "resides" only in its state of incorporation. Its holding relies heavily on Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Products Corp., a Supreme Court case from 1957 addressing patent venue specifically that lower courts had left by the wayside after Congress amended the venue statute that applies to civil cases generally.

The Court's decision to resurrect Fourco as authority for determining a corporation's residency in patent cases overrules the interpretation of the Federal Circuit, which had incorporated the general venue statute's broader definition of residency as commensurate with personal jurisdiction.

Critics of the Federal Circuit's interpretation have long argued that it led to excessive forum shopping, as jurisdictions perceived as more favorable to patent owners became hotbeds of patent litigation. One particularly active jurisdiction has been the Eastern District of Texas, which reportedly saw one third of all new patent cases filed last quarter. The Supreme Court's ruling in TC Heartland appears certain to force a redistribution of patent cases away from the Eastern District for the many defendants who do not have places of business in that forum.


The TC Heartland case arose out of a dispute between food and beverage industry competitors TC Heartland and Kraft Foods over "flavored drink mixes." Kraft Foods sued TC Heartland for patent infringement in the US District Court for the District of Delaware. Although TC Heartland ships allegedly infringing products to Delaware, it is not registered to do business in Delaware and has no "meaningful local presence" there. Rather, TC Heartland is headquartered and incorporated in Indiana.3 Arguing that venue in Delaware was improper, TC Heartland moved to dismiss the case or transfer venue to the Southern District of Indiana. After losing its motion in District Court, TC Heartland petitioned the Federal Circuit for a writ of mandamus. The Federal Circuit denied the petition.4

Central to this case is the interplay between the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), and the general venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c). Section 1400(b) provides that "[a]ny 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."5 As TC Heartland had no "regular and established place of business" in Delaware, the venue dispute focused on the first clause of § 1400(b), pertaining to residency. Relying on its own precedent, the Federal Circuit looked to § 1391(c) to determine where a corporation "resides." That provision says that—"[e]xcept as otherwise provided by law"—"For all venue purposes" a corporate defendant "shall be deemed to reside ... in any judicial district in which such defendant is subject to the court's personal jurisdiction with respect to the civil action in question."6 Applying that definition to § 1400(b), the Federal Circuit found that TC Heartland did "reside" in Delaware because it was subject to the court's personal jurisdiction there, and thus, venue was proper.7

The Court's Decision

The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the definition of "reside" in § 1391(c) does not determine where a corporate "defendant resides" under the patent venue statute, § 1400(b).8

The Court relied principally on Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Products Corp., a decades-old case in which it held that under § 1400(b)—"the sole and exclusive provision controlling venue in patent infringement actions"—a domestic corporation "resides" only in its state of incorporation.9 Bolstering its analysis with a comprehensive review of the legislative history of the venue provisions, the Court concluded that Fourco's interpretation of § 1400(b) still applies.

Writing for the Court, Justice Thomas explained that the predecessor to § 1400(b)—which was enacted in 1897 to clarify the standard for venue in patent cases as distinct from the general venue statute—permitted suit in the district where a corporate defendant was an "inhabitant," or where the defendant maintained a "regular and established place of business" and had committed an act of infringement.10 At that time, a corporation was understood to "inhabit" only its state of incorporation.11 In 1948, Congress recodified the patent venue statute as today's § 1400(b), replacing the word "inhabitant" with "resides," and simultaneously enacted § 1391, which for the first time defined "residence" for corporate defendants in civil actions generally.12

Fourco, decided shortly thereafter, eliminated confusion among lower courts as to whether the definition of "residence" in § 1391(c) applied to the word "resides" in § 1400(b). The Fourco Court held that the patent venue statute operates independently from all other venue provisions, and—notwithstanding the general definition in § 1391(c) —the word "resides" in § 1400(b) had the same meaning as the pre-1948 term "inhabit[s]," i.e., a defendant's state of incorporation.13

Whereas § 1400(b) has remained unchanged since its initial enactment, § 1391(c) has been amended twice—first in 1988 and again in 2011.14 The Federal Circuit has repeatedly interpreted those amendments as signaling an intent to overrule Fourco.15

Reversing long-standing Federal Circuit precedent, the TC Heartland Court revived Fourco. The Supreme Court reasoned that, because Congress never amended § 1400(b), the particular meaning that was "definitively and unambiguously" ascribed to the term "reside" in § 1400(b) in Fourco cannot be changed without a "relatively clear indication" of Congressional intent. The Court found no such indication in revisions to § 1391(c).16

The Supreme Court's decision in TC Heartland to limit the "residence" clause of § 1400(b) to a corporate defendant's state of incorporation is a groundbreaking development that resets decades of patent venue jurisprudence.

Looking Forward

Although patent infringement plaintiffs can no longer lay venue based on a corporate defendant's "residence" in any and all districts where a court would have personal jurisdiction, the patent venue statute provides an alternative: plaintiffs may bring suit "where the defendant resides, or where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business."

With residence diminished, proper venue will likely turn on two important questions:

First, how will courts determine "where the defendant has committed acts of infringement?" Where, for example, may venue lie when a defendant spreads out system components or method steps across multiple districts17 or among multiple parties,18 or when liability is premised on acts of inducement?19

Second, how will courts assess what constitutes "a regular and established place of business?" The Supreme Court in 1915, on one hand, found no regular and established place of business where the defendant's employee in the district worked for two companies in a shared workspace, and solicited and forwarded orders to the defendant company's home office.20 The Federal Circuit in 1985, on the other hand, found a regular and established place of business where the defendant's two full-time, exclusive employees in the district worked from home, provided real-time and ongoing technical consultation, and kept a stock of products to provide to customers.21 Other circuits meanwhile addressed the issue, but no universal test emerged.22

As these questions trickle through the courts, we can expect that TC Heartland will disperse patent litigation from some uniquely concentrated hotbeds such as the Eastern District of Texas but will not eliminate forum shopping altogether.


1.TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, No. 16-341 (May 22, 2017) (slip op.).

2.Recently confirmed Justice Neil Gorsuch did not participate in the decision.

3.TC Heartland, slip op. at 2.

4.Id. at 2-3.

5.28 U.S.C. § 1400(b).

6.28 U.S.C. § 1391(a), (c).

7.In re TC Heartland LLC, 821 F. 3d 1338, 1341-45 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

8.TC Heartland, slip op. at 2.

Id. at 1, 5, 7-9 (citing Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Products Corp., 353 U.S. 222 (1957)).

9.Id. at 4.

Id. at 4 (citing Shaw v. Quincy Mining Co., 145 U.S. 444, 449-450 (1892)).

10.Id. at 5.

11.Fourco, 353 U.S., at 224, 226, 228-29.

12.TC Heartland, slip op. at 5-7.

13.TC Heartland, slip op. at 6-7 (citing VE Holding Corp. v. Johnson Gas Appliance Co., 917 F.2d 1574, 1580 (Fed. Circ. 1990)).

14TC Heartland, slip op. at 7-8. The Court was not persuaded by the proviso of § 1391(c) that it applies "{f}or all venue purposes," as the prior version at issue in Fourco used the similar catch-all phrasing "for venue purposes." Id. at 8-9. The Court further reasoned that current § 1391(c) is arguably less amenable to incorporation into § 1400(b) than prior versions, because it expressly does not apply "when otherwise provided by law." The general venue provision at issue in Fourco contained no such exception. Id. at 9. The Court also observed that in the current version of § 1391(c), Congress removed the language "under this chapter," which had provided the underpinning for the Federal Circuit's decision in VE Holding construing § 1400(b). Id. at 9-10.

15See, e.g., NTP, Inc. v. Research In Motion, Ltd., 418 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

16See, e.g., Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 797 F.3d 1020 (Fed. Cir. 2015).

17See, e.g., Knapp-Monarch Co. v. Casco Prod. Corp., 342 F.2d 622 (7th Cir. 1965); Mid-Continent Metal Prod. Co. v. Maxon Premix Burner Co., 367 F.2d 818, 820 (7th Cir. 1966); see also Deepsouth Packing Co. v. Laitram Corp., 406 U.S. 518 (1972).

18W.S. Tyler Co. v. Ludlow-Saylor Wire Co., 236 U.S. 723 (1915); see also Gen. Radio Co. v. Superior Elec. Co., 293 F.2d 949, 951 (1st Cir. 1961) ("In that case as in this, the local salesman consummated no sales himself; his only duty with respect to sales was 'to solicit orders (and) forward them when received to the home office for execution.' It is evident from the opinion in the Tyler Co. case that this is the fact the Court considered determinative.").

19In re Cordis Corp., 769 F.2d 733 (Fed. Cir. 1985); see also Remington Rand Bus. Serv. v. Acme Card Sys. Co., 71 F.2d 628, 630 (4th Cir. 1934) ("Here we have, however, not merely the solicitation of orders, subject to the approval of the home office, but also the maintenance of a stock of goods and sales therefrom to responsible customers without prior reference to the home office; and, in addition, employees who serve customers by keeping in proper working order merchandise purchased from the defendant.").

20.See Univ. of Ill. Found. v. Channel Master Corp., 382 F.2d 514 (7th Cir. 1967); Knapp-Monarch, 342 F.2d 622 (7th Cir. 1965); Gen. Radio, 293 F.2d 949 (1st Cir. 1961); Phillips v. Baker, 121 F.2d 752 (9th Cir. 1941); Remington, 71 F.2d 628 (4th Cir. 1934); Dual Mfg. & Eng., Inc. v. Burris Inds., Inc., 531 F.2d 1382 (7th Cir. 1976).

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.

In association with
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
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of www.mondaq.com

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). 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 & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about Mondaq.com’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd 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 or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to unsubscribe@mondaq.com with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to webmaster@mondaq.com.

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to EditorialAdvisor@mondaq.com.

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at enquiries@mondaq.com.

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at problems@mondaq.com and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.