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.

Footnotes

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.

Authors
Events from this Firm
26 Sep 2018, Webinar, Washington, DC, United States

This latest series of webinars will explore emerging trends in the changing intellectual property (IP) legal environment in Europe and the United States.

26 Sep 2018, Webinar, Washington, DC, United States

This latest series of webinars will explore emerging trends in the changing intellectual property (IP) legal environment in Europe and the United States.

1 Oct 2018, Seminar, New York, United States

Finnegan partner Doug Rettew will consider recent Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) developments during Practicing Law Institute’s Intellectual Property Institute.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Jones Day
Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C.
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Jones Day
Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C.
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