United States: Intellectual Property Newsletter Jun 21st 2017

More Trouble Brewing in the Heartland: Foreign Corporation Immunity and Other Issues Arising from the Supreme Court's Venue Decision

The patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), provides that patent infringement actions "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." For over 25 years, since Congress amended the general venue statute and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued its decision in VE Holding v. Johnson Gas, 917 F.2d 1574 (1990), courts have looked to § 1391(c), the "residency" part of the general venue statute, for the definition of the word "resides" to be used in § 1400(b) venue analyses, and as a result have found venue to be proper for a patent-defendant corporation in any district where the corporation is subject to personal jurisdiction. But in May of this year, the Supreme Court overruled VE Holding and held that the definition in § 1391 is not applicable to § 1400(b).1 Thus, the Supreme Court returned patent venue jurisprudence to its previous state, as set by Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Prods. Corp., 353 U.S. 222 (1957), in which the Supreme Court held that, as used in § 1400(b), a domestic corporation "resides" only in its state of incorporation, as understood in the 19th century, and thus can be sued for patent infringement only in the state of its incorporation or in a state where it both has allegedly infringed and has an established place of business.

While TC Heartland was ostensibly about moving the litigation from the improper venue of Delaware to TC Heartland's home court of Indiana, this case was so eagerly awaited primarily because it might serve to limit the amount of patent litigation that may permissibly be filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (the "EDTX"), the current situs of 43% of all U.S. patent litigation. Of course, given that more than half of publicly traded U.S. companies are incorporated in Delaware, due in part to its pro-business state laws, this Supreme Court ruling might simply move the logjam to another court that some consider to be fairly pro-patent.

The Court did leave some doubt about the reach of its holding. Left unanswered by TC Heartland is what effect the ruling will have on a patentee's ability to sue foreign corporations for infringement. The Court, in a footnote, noted but did not opine on this issue. The Court further noted that it was not, at this time, opining on its decades-old ruling in Brunette Machine Works, Ltd. v. Kockum Indus., Inc., 406 U.S. 706 (1972), in which the Court held that—given personal jurisdiction over the defendant—a foreign patent infringer may be sued anywhere.2

The logic of the earlier Brunette case is now in some doubt. The Brunette court held that venue in patent infringement actions against alien corporations is not governed by the patent venue statute, because of "the longstanding rule that suits against alien defendants are outside [venue] statutes."3 However, to support this holding, the Court pointed to the then- current portion of the general venue statute governing venue of actions against aliens—at the time, § 1391(d)—which provided that "[a]n alien may be sued in any district." However, in 2011, Congress revised the venue statute, moving the rule governing alien defendants from § 1391(d) into the "residency" section of § 1391, at § 1391(c)(3), and rewording it to refer to "defendants not resident in the United States." This presents a problem, because § 1391(c)(2) makes corporate residency co-extensive with personal jurisdiction, and if that definition applies in section (c)(3), then section (c)(3) provides nationwide venue only for alien corporate defendants who are not subject to personal jurisdiction in any district and thus are immune from suit regardless of venue.

Courts may attempt to resolve this issue by ruling, per the general reasoning of the 1972 Brunette opinion, that while the patent venue statute is exclusive and is not supplemented by anything in the general venue statute, alien corporations are by longstanding rule simply not subject to it, and thus can be sued for patent infringement in any district.

However, in view of the statutory amendments described above, that may be too big a leap to be defensible by the Supreme Court. Despite a natural reluctance to find that, in its 2011 amendments, Congress accidentally immunized alien corporations with no U.S. place of business from suit in patent cases, that outcome does seem to be the necessary result of the language of the amended statutes.

If such companies are indeed immune from suit, at least until Congress amends the venue statutes to fill the gap, then patent owners will naturally respond by suing downstream U.S. entities who either sell or use the accused products. They might, for example, sue a U.S. distributor. That suit would need to be brought in one of the perhaps limited set of districts where the distributor has offices or is incorporated, and thus in many cases could not be filed in the Eastern District of Texas.

However, patent owners might instead be driven to sue retailers (who in many cases will have places of business nationwide), or even users of the accused products, who are subject to venue in the patent-owner's preferred forum. This would lead to some complicated choices for the upstream supplier, whether that supplier is located elsewhere in the United States or overseas, and for the district court. The retailer defendant in the case in the preferred forum could identify the upstream supplier as a required party under Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 19. The supplier would object that, as to itself, venue is not proper in the preferred forum. And following Rule 19, the court would then have to dismiss the supplier and decide, "in equity and good conscience," whether to (i) proceed without the required party, or (ii) dismiss the entire case, forcing the patent owner to sue in one of the supplier's preferred venues.

The same kind of complication could result from TC Heartland even if venue for alien corporations is found to be proper in every district, per Brunette. For example, in a situation in which the accused infringers include both a U.S. entity and a foreign one (such as a foreign parent corporation), a patentee could choose to sue only the foreign corporation and bring the case anywhere, including the EDTX. Then the foreign entity could seek to join the U.S. entity to the lawsuit under Rule 19. And once again, the court would have to decide whether to have the case go forward without the U.S. entity, or to dismiss the case and force the suit to one of the defendants' preferred venues.

No matter how this all shakes out, the EDTX will likely still see a significant number of newly filed patent cases because venue is proper there if both acts of infringement were committed and the defendant has a regularly established place of business in the district. And, there are many companies with significant facilities located there, which—depending on the Supreme Court's future view of the applicability of § 1391(c)(3)—could even serve to make venue proper there for customers of those local companies. The biggest change wrought by TC Heartland likely is the benefit to California-based software companies, especially those with only insignificant facilities in the rest of the country, who now will much more likely face suit in their home court of the Northern District of California or—if their views of the significance of the benefits of forum shopping to non-practicing entities is correct—perhaps not at all.

Oil States: The Constitutionality of the Current Patent Regime

On June 12, 2017, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case of Oil States Energy Servs., LLC v. Greene's Energy Grp., LLC, with respect to the first question presented:

Whether inter partes review—an adversarial process used by the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to analyze the validity of existing patents—violates the Constitution by extinguishing private property rights through a non-Article

In 2012, patent owner Oil States filed an infringement suit against Greene's Energy Group in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. During the Markman proceedings, the court construed the claims of the asserted patent in a manner so as to be distinct from one of the inventor's own prior art published applications. After Markman, the defendant filed an inter partes review ("IPR") petition arguing that the aforementioned published application anticipated the asserted claims. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the "PTAB") applied the "broadest reasonable interpretation" claim construction standard, granted the petition, and instituted the IPR. Oil States attempted to amend the claims both to align their scope with the disclosure of the patent specification and to more clearly distinguish the prior art application. But the PTAB denied the motion, stating that Oil States had not "demonstrated" or sufficiently "explained" where and how each new claim element was disclosed in the specification. The PTAB then, in a final written decision, found the patent claims unpatentable.

Oil States appealed the PTAB's decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the "CAFC") on various bases, including arguing that the IPR process is violative of Article III of the U.S. Constitution and the Seventh Amendment, especially as they protect the right to trial by jury. During briefing and before oral argument, the CAFC issued its decision in MCM Portfolio LLC v. Hewlett-Packard Co.,4 which rejected a similar constitutionality argument. The CAFC affirmed the result in the Oil States IPR, and denied requests for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc.

In its successful petition for certiorari, Oil States argued that the Supreme Court and predecessor English courts have always required jury trials for infringement suits, and that invalidity is a defense made in such suits that also must be the province of the jury. Congress's attempt to "streamline" patent litigation by permitting the PTAB to resolve invalidity defenses, according to Oil States, supplants the jury trial and renders "Markman a dead letter." Oil States further argued that patent rights are more than "public" property rights that may arise out of, and be taken away by, agency hearings. Rather, patent rights are "complete with the most important characteristic of private ownership—the right of exclusion"—and exist wholly apart from the government once granted. In this regard, Oil States pointed out in its briefing that patents are not closely tied to a regulatory scheme, as the PTO is not responsible for violations of a patent.

Oil States also asserted that it had a right to an Article III forum for invalidation proceedings, citing Supreme Court precedent for the proposition that—once a patent is granted—it "is not subject to be revoked or canceled by the president, or any other officer of the Government" because "it has become the property of the patentee, and as such is entitled to the same legal protection as other property."5

Greene's Energy Group responded to the petition by disputing Oil States' characterization of historical English practice, and asserting that invalidation proceedings were traditionally reserved for chancery courts. Greene's Energy Group also argued that patents are public property rights, deriving from an extensive federal regulatory scheme, and that Oil States therefore has no right to have invalidation proceedings heard in an Article III court. Needless to say, this case has the potential to completely upend the current balance of power in patent litigation. IPR petitions are on pace to exceed 2,000 in number this year (compared to 4,500 new patent lawsuits),6 and have become the knee-jerk first response to most patent suits. They have been so successful that those bringing infringement suits have reduced the expected value of their cases, that patent-holders have marked down the value of their portfolios, that patent auctions have resulted in less money changing hands, and that clients are paying their patent prosecutors and litigators less. A Supreme Court reversal in Oil States might even affect other post-grant proceedings, including the long-standing ex parte reexamination proceedings and the relatively new derivation proceedings—although, until TC Heartland, one might have thought that the three-decade-plus history of ex parte reexaminations would itself foreclose the possibility of reversal here. A reversal would mean that, for at least a period of time, patent litigation practice would be in a state of chaos as the PTAB and Federal Circuit would be forced to terminate all existing proceedings, litigation defendants would have to scramble for new defense strategies, and Congress would be confronted with the prospect of sorting out alternative, Constitutional ways to achieve the results sought in the AIA.

To read the full article click here

Footnotes

1 TC Heartland, LLC v. Kraft Foods Grp. Brands LLC, No. 16-341 slip op. at 1 (2017).

2 TC Heartland, No. 16-341 slip op. at 7 n.2.

3 Brunette, 406 U.S. at 713.

4 812 F.3d 1284 (Fed. Cir. 2015).

5 Citing McCormick Harvesting Mach. Co. v. C. Aultman & Co., 169 U.S. 606, 608–09 (1898).

6 Statistics from Docket Navigator.

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.

Authors
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Jones Day
Morrison & Foerster LLP
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Jones Day
Morrison & Foerster LLP
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
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
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
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.

Disclaimer

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.

General

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