United States: Patent Venue: How We Got To TC Heartland, And What's Next

TC Heartland1 will profoundly affect patent litigation. TC Heartland reasserts the court's Fourco2 holding that venue in a patent infringement case is controlled exclusively by 28 U.S.C. § 1400, and not by the general venue provisions. Before examining the decision's impact, we will consider first how we got here. Next, we will consider the court's holding. Then, we will consider the impact this decision will likely have. Finally, we will explore options for dealing effectively with the changes that this and other decisions may have.

How Did We Get Here?

The growth of the Eastern District of Texas as a venue for patent cases did not occur overnight. It was the result of multiple factors hat coalesced over decades.

First, over the past 30 years, the patent bar has seen at least three iterations of the "Invasion of the Body Snatchers"—general practice firms either buying a patent practice or acquiring laterals to enhance their patent capacity.

In the early 1980s, the patent infringement bar was a sleepy corner of the law dominated by—what are now considered small—boutiques. Most practitioners played the scientific and technical issues straight. Attorneys generally behaved civilly toward one another. And cases were typically tried to a single district judge.

The first of these "invasions" was in the mid- to late-1980s to early 1990s. General practice firms began teaming patent practitioners with their civil trial lawyers. This first "invasion" generally enhanced the trial skills of the patent bar. Because they were comfortable trying cases to a jury, general civil trial lawyers tended to ask for jury trials. And not only were lay juries up to the challenge, they tended to award higher damages than judges.

Second, tort law had developed substantially. And certain districts became havens for tort cases, Texas among them. In 1975, Page Keeton, then dean of the University of Texas Law School, chaired a committee proposing tort reform in Texas but the Texas Legislature was either unwilling or unable to adopt them.

Third, although the creation of the Federal Circuit in 1982 eliminated forum shopping at the regional circuit level, it ended up encouraging it at the district court level. The patent-specific venue provision—Section 1400—provides that a patent case can be brought only in the district in which (1) the defendant resides; or (2) the defendant has both a regular and established place of business and has committed acts of infringement. 28 U.S.C. § 1400. The first thing that happened in many patent infringement cases was a motion to transfer for improper venue. This practice however, virtually ended with the VE Holding3 decision by the Federal Circuit.

The issue in VE Holding was whether the intervening congressional amendment of the general patent venue provision (28 U.S.C. § 1391) modified the specific venue provision (§ 1400). The general venue provision (28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)) had been modified to state that a corporation "resides" wherever personal jurisdiction over it can be found. Moreover, the general venue provision covered venue for "all purposes under this chapter." The Federal Circuit held that these revisions overruled the patent-specific venue provision of Section 1400. A patent case could be brought in any district having personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Some courts, including Texas, maintained an aggressive definition of personal jurisdiction. If the accused product found its way into the jurisdiction, even through no fault of the defendant, personal jurisdiction was proper and, therefore, venue was proper.

Fourth, tort reform played a significant role. Perhaps the high water mark for the plaintiffs tort bar was the mass tort cases on various drug, asbestos and tobacco products in the mid- to late-1990s. The settlement of a secondhand smoke class action in Miami in October 1997 effectively ended decades of tobacco litigation. The November 1998 Tobacco Settlement Endowment Trust imposed liability in the billions of dollars and generated billions of dollars in contingency fees. Similarly, the potentially vast liability for asbestos-related damages became apparent to the industry by the mid-1990s. This culminated in a series of Chapter 11 bankruptcy filings permitting many of the companies to pay their liability over time or simply shut down.

From the '70s through the '90s, tort reform efforts in Texas were largely unsuccessful. Numerous proposals were made but all of them either bogged down in committee or were defeated on the floor of the Texas Legislature. Texas did eventually enact limits on tort recoveries. But in 1988, the Texas Supreme Court declared them unconstitutional. Finally, in 2003, substantial tort reform measures passed and were signed into law. These were accompanied by a constitutional amendment, permitting the law to take effect. Thus, by 2003, with most of the big mass tort cases concluded, and medical malpractice claims being reined in by tort reform, plaintiffs tort lawyers were looking for work.

Fifth, by the late 1990s, the "dot-com" explosion unleashed a flurry of startups and of new patent applications. Rather than rigorously enforcing the requirements for patentability, however, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office loosened them. The PTO issued hundreds of thousands of patents that may not—and when challenged often do not—pass muster under today's more rigorous criteria.

At the same time as the PTO was granting these questionable patents, the courts were also weakening some of the requirements for a valid patent. Had the rules been enforced then as they are understood today,4 they might have prevented this proliferation of bad patents. In Exxon Research,5 the Federal Circuit held that a claim was indefinite only if it was insolubly ambiguous. Yet, there is a substantial distance between "insolubly ambiguous" and the "reasonable certainty" required by Section 112. And into this gap the patent office issued hundreds of thousands of patents. The general practice bar one again looked hungrily at patent practice resulting in the second "Invasion of the Body Snatchers."

Nothing lasts forever and the dot-com explosion was followed by the dot-com bust of 2000-2002. This substantially increased pressure on these new entrants into intellectual property practice. Although a growing number of law firms were chasing a decreasing number of viable clients, the number of patent infringement lawsuits continued to climb.

Sixth, in 2007, the financial crisis intervened and 2008 saw a deeper downturn than the depths of the Great Depression. This placed additional pressure on BigLaw. Transactional work was down, as was corporate and securities work, and virtually no one was doing initial public offerings. Bankruptcy work was down. Real estate work was down. One area of work did not seem to be down—patent infringement litigation. So too, many plaintiffs tort lawyers were also looking for new opportunities. And a third "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" followed.

Seventh, the America Invents Act in 2011 was a major turning point. This, along with more liberal fee-shifting for filing an objectively unreasonable claim,6 has slowed the growth of new cases. The number of new patent filings has dropped from its peak of about 6,497 in 2013 to 5,080 in 2016.

What Happened?

Following the VE Holding decision, defendants gave up and were not even filing venue transfer motions. One lesson from TC Heartland is that simply because the U.S. Supreme Court declines to take cert. it does not necessarily mean that it agrees with the holding below. Ironically, TC Heartland is not an Eastern District of Texas case. Rather, Kraft sued TC Heartland in Delaware. TC Heartland is an Indiana corporation headquartered in Indiana. TC Heartland moved to transfer the case to Indiana and the motion was denied.

Many in the patent bar expected that the Supreme Court would affirm the Federal Circuit's decision. Fourco is an old decision. The venue statute had been amended repeatedly since Fourco. And, the Federal Circuit in VE Holding articulated a reasonable explanation why the intervening amendments to the general venue provisions of Section 1391 overruled Fourco.

Nonetheless, the court in TC Heartland held that, as applied to a domestic corporation, "resides" in Section 1400 (b) refers only to the state of incorporation. The amendments to the general venue provision equating residence with personal jurisdiction did not modify the meaning of 1400 (b).

Where Are We Going?

Can patent cases no longer be filed in the Eastern District of Texas? Although some may desire this result, TC Heartland is not quite so severe.

The first prong of the patent venue statute provides that a domestic corporation can be sued only in its state of incorporation. 28 U.S.C. § 1400 (b). Similarly, individuals can be sued only in the state in which they reside. The second prong of the patent venue statute provides that a defendant can be sued, alternatively, in a district in which it has a regular and established place of business and has committed acts of infringement. The vast majority of cases currently filed in the Eastern District of Texas are neither. These will now have to be filed in other districts. This will likely include the: District of Delaware; Northern, Central and Southern Districts of California; Northern District of Illinois; Southern District of New York; and others. Most already have experience trying patent cases. TC Heartland will likely also distribute patent cases to districts that have little experience with patent cases.

Having amassed 20 years of expertise trying patent cases, what will become of the Eastern District of Texas? Fear not. Section 1391(d) provides that a foreign defendant may be sued in any district. Texas aggressively defines personal jurisdiction based on a stream of commerce theory. These rules will continue to capture foreign defendants whose products end up in Texas.

Best Practices

  1. Preserve your position on unsettled legal issues: Although the Federal Circuit has brought greater uniformity to patent jurisprudence, many issues remain unresolved. Consider how best to preserve the issues you care about even if you expect an adverse initial ruling.
  2. Know the law: Intellectual property is complicated, both technically and legally. If you do not have the necessary expertise, either get it or associate with someone who has it.
  3. Keep up with developing trends: Recent years have seen active development of the patent law, both at the Federal Circuit and Supreme Court. There have been significant changes in the law. Keep up.
  4. Think through your defenses: Many defendants simply recite a checklist of defenses in answering the complaint. Research the facts of your case early, and, if necessary, timely amend your contentions, interrogatory answers, and pleadings.
  5. Join the real party in interest or move to dismiss if they cannot be joined: There is a robust secondary market for patents. Yet, the PTO's assignment register is a mess. In addition, litigation financing is now more readily available than it used to be. Although financing is not necessarily admissible, or even relevant, some financing options are a little too creative. Call out arrangements that are not appropriate.
  6. Act responsibly: The patent bar now includes more lawyers in general practice firms than it does in boutiques. Some parts of the general practice bar are polarized between defense and plaintiffs counsel and this is now extending to the patent bar. As this trend has progressed, the level of civility and professionalism has—at least in this author's view—fallen, sometimes dramatically. It is not a positive or necessary outcome. Octane Fitness empowers district courts to do something about the lack of civility and bad behavior. And they are.
  7. Participate in the patent bar: You will at least get to know your competition. You may make friends. Getting to know your opponent personally may help you avoid engaging in the type of behavior that will get you sanctioned. Who knows? You may learn something. We in the patent bar—well at least some of us—welcome you with open arms.


1 TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, 581 U.S. ___ (2017).

2 Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Products Corp., 353 U.S. 222 (1957).

3 VE Holding Corp. v. Johnson Gas Appliance Co., 917 F.2d 1574 (1990).

4 Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. ___ (2014) requires reasonable certainty.

5 Exxon Chemical Patents, Inc. v. Lubrizol Corp., 64 F.3d 1553 (Fed. Cir. 1995).

6 Octane Fitness v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc., 572 U.S. ___ (2014).

Originally printed in Law360 on August 7, 2017.

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.

Events from this Firm
15 Nov 2017, Conference, California, United States

Finnegan is a Gold sponsor of the second annual Digital Media & IP Forum, hosted by World Congress.

15 Nov 2017, Conference, London, UK

Finnegan partner Leythem Wall will consider European claim drafting strategy and will lead the Chemical Workshop during a two-day course, hosted by Management Forum.

15 Nov 2017, Seminar, Amsterdam, Netherlands

Finnegan partner Anthony Tridico will lead Forum Institute for Management’s course comparing patent law in the United States and Europe.

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.