United States: How Does TC Heartland Affect Venue For Digital Distribution Companies?

Digital distribution, gaming, and entertainment companies employ a business model that differs substantially from companies that have a brick-and-mortar presence. Digital distribution companies may distribute products on a global scale through the internet, have an online presence that reaches practically everyone with an internet connection, and have little in terms of physical retail presence. Leaders in such companies may find it jarring when their company is sued in a remote location and unreasonable when the company's witnesses have to travel hundreds of miles to testify at trial.

Before the Supreme Court's recent decision in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Grp. Brands LLC, being sued for patent infringement in a faraway district was often the norm. A corporation could be sued in a state merely because it had "minimum contacts" with the state sufficient to establish personal jurisdiction. As the term "minimum" appropriately implies, this test was often easy to meet. Some statistics show, for instance, that more than one-third of all newly filed patent cases in 2016 were filed in the Eastern District of Texas. Many of these cases were filed on the basis that the sale and distribution of accused products in the Eastern District of Texas was enough to establish "minimum contacts."

TC Heartland changed this dramatically. It clarified the patent venue statute, holding that minimum contacts alone are no longer sufficient. Instead, a company may only be sued for patent infringement where it is either: (1) incorporated; or (2) has a regularly established place of business and has committed acts of infringement.

TC Heartland's impact on digital distribution companies is particularly pronounced given their unique business models and lack of physical presence. Several recent decisions illustrate the effect TC Heartland has already had on digital distribution, gaming, and entertainment companies. The following cases provide a glimpse into TC Heartland's potential effect on these companies and highlight considerations that counsel for these companies may wish to keep in mind:

  • Digital distribution companies can expect greater success in limiting patent lawsuits to their state of incorporation or headquarters following TC Heartland;
  • and Counsel for companies with both digital and physical products should carefully consider corporate structure and its potential effect on patent venue.

TC Heartland

The patent venue statute set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) provides two tests for venue. A patent infringement action may be brought only in: (1) the judicial district where the defendant resides; or (2) where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business. The Supreme Court previously ruled that § 1400(b) is the sole and exclusive venue provision for patent infringement actions. Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Prods. Corp., 353 U.S. 222, 229 (1957).

Before TC Heartland, the first test (district where the defendant resides) was easy to meet. Patent venue was expansive. This was because the Federal Circuit had found that a corporation "resides" under § 1400(b) in any judicial district in which the corporation is subject to personal jurisdiction. VE Holding Corp. v. Johnson Gas Appliance Co., 917 F.2d 1574, 1584 (Fed. Cir. 1990). The personal jurisdiction standard was based on a "minimum contacts:" test that was easy to satisfy. E.g., Electronics for Imaging, Inc. v. Coyle, 340 F.3d 1344, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2003). For companies that rely on digital distribution of content, this test could often be met anywhere in the U.S. As a result, defendants rarely raised an improper venue defense when plaintiffs brought actions in locations other than their principal places of business. For example, in the 10 years prior to TC Heartland in the Eastern District of Texas, only 10 defendants moved to transfer based on improper venue. In the eight months after TC Heartland, more than 70 defendants have brought motions to transfer for improper venue, according to Docket Navigator.

TC Heartland significantly narrowed patent venue. The Supreme Court held in TC Heartland that residence in the patent venue statute (the first test) refers only to the state of incorporation of a domestic corporation. 137 S.Ct. 1514, 1515 (2017). This was a pivotal change. Rather than potentially residing anywhere in the U.S., as could be the case for a domestic company that digitally distributes content, a company only resides in one state, its state of incorporation. To bring a lawsuit elsewhere, plaintiffs must now satisfy the second test (where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business).

Thus, defendants can now argue that venue is improper in a district even though that district has personal jurisdiction over the defendant. In combination with 28 U.S.C. § 1406, which requires a district court to dismiss or transfer a case if venue is improper, defendants—for the first time in 27 years—can now exercise greater control over where they can be sued. Following TC Heartland, many digital entertainment companies, including gaming companies, have successfully transferred their cases away from historically popular patent venues to their home districts. These initial cases suggest that digital entertainment companies can expect greater success in moving cases to their home districts, as plaintiffs will face the difficult task of satisfying the second test under § 1400(b): showing the defendant has a regular and established place of business and has committed acts of infringement outside of the company's state of incorporation.

Recent Decisions

A number of recent decisions illustrate the particular impact of TC Heartland on digital distribution and entertainment companies. Companies that rely on digital distribution of content (e.g., games, movies) often do not have a physical presence in multiple states. As a result, these companies may not satisfy the second test under § 1400(b) ("where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business") outside of their state of incorporation. In such cases, the state of incorporation would be the only state in which a patentee can sue for patent infringement.

The Federal Circuit in In re Cray, Inc., 871 F.3d 1355, 1359-60 (Fed. Cir. 2017), provided further guidance as to the factors courts should consider when determining what constitutes a "regular and established place of business" under the patent venue statute. The three factors are: "(1) there must be a physical place in the district; (2) it must be a regular and established place of business; and (3) it must be the place of the defendant." Notable for digital distribution companies, as to the first of these factors, the Federal Circuit stated that the statute "cannot be read to refer merely to a virtual space or to electronic communications from one person to another."

Treehouse Avatar LLC v. Valve Corp.

Valve Corporation in November 2017 successfully transferred a lawsuit brought by Treehouse Avatar LLC to the Western District of Washington. Report and Recommendation, Treehouse Avatar LLC v. Valve Corp., D. Del., 15-cv-00427, case transferred 11/20/17. Valve is a digital entertainment company that produces and markets many popular video games including "Team Fortress 2," "Dota 2," and "Portal 2." In addition, Valve operates an online platform called Steam that sells and distributes electronic content, primarily focused on video games.

Avatar initially sued Valve in a remote district, the District of Delaware. In the wake of TC Heartland, Valve moved to transfer to its state of incorporation, Washington. Because there was no dispute that Valve was not incorporated in Delaware, the court analyzed the second prong under § 1400(b): whether Valve had committed acts of infringement and had a regular and established place of business in Delaware.

Treehouse argued that the majority of Valve's business takes place online and Valve's internet activities through its players should constitute a regular and established place of business. According to Treehouse, "players acting as Valve surrogates [provide] networks for other players to connect [to] and play" and should therefore be considered a regular and established place of business. The court disagreed, explaining that Valve did not have offices or employees in Delaware and, therefore, Valve did not have a regular and established place of business in Delaware. Regarding Valve's internet activities as a regular and established place of business would, according to the court, raise concerns of "essentially turning any cell phone, laptop, or computer into a regular and established place of business for a company." (internal quotations omitted).

In a separate proceeding, Valve was also successful in transferring a case from the Northern District of Georgia to its state of incorporation. Ironburg Inventions Ltd. v. Valve Corp., N.D. Ga., 15-cv-04219, case transferred 8/3/17. On the merits of Valve's motion, the court did ''not see[] any evidence'' that Valve had a regular and established place of business in the Northern District of Georgia, nor had it committed acts of infringement in the district.

These cases illustrate the particular effect of TC Heartland on gaming companies, which often distribute their products electronically online, without a physical presence in many states.

Symbology Innovations, LLC v. Lego Sys., Inc.

Lego Systems, a company incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in Connecticut, successfully transferred a case to Connecticut in September 2017. Symbology Innovations, LLC v. Lego Sys., Inc., E.D. Va., 17-cv-00086, case transferred 9/28/17.

Symbology brought suit in Virginia against Lego based on four patents directed to QR codes. Lego moved to transfer after TC Heartland, citing that it had no retail stores in Virginia or anywhere else. Lego, however, had a subsidiary, Lego Brand Retail Inc., that operates Lego stores in 30 states, including three stores in Virginia.

In ordering transfer, the court analyzed § 1400(b). First, the court found that the first prong (residence) was not satisfied in Virginia because Lego's state of incorporation is Delaware. Next, the court found that Lego did not have a regular and established place of business in Virginia. In particular, the court did not impute the three retail stores operated by Lego's subsidiary on Lego. The court noted that Lego and its subsidiary had formal corporate separateness, having separate finances, assets, offices, and records. The court also noted that the subsidiary was not an exclusive distributor of Lego products. As a result, the court found that Lego did not have a regular established place of business in Virginia and concluded that venue was improper there.

In a similar case, a defendant who sold physical products via Amazon Fulfillment Centers in California successfully moved to dismiss a case based on improper venue. Reeflection, LLC v. Spire Collective LLC, S.D. Cal., 17-cv-01603, 1/5/18. The defendant there was incorporated in Pennsylvania, and only sold physical products in California through a third party (Amazon), which the court found was insufficient to satisfy the patent venue statute.

The Symbology and Reeflection cases highlight the importance of corporate separateness in the venue analysis. For companies that both manufacture and sell products, having a separate corporate entity responsible for selling the products at retail locations could be dispositive in terms of venue. This same principle would apply to digital entertainment companies that want a retail presence.


Companies that rely on digital distribution of their products possess a unique advantage over other companies when attempting to rebut a claim that the company has a "regular and established place of business" in a district other than the company's state of incorporation. As a result, such companies can expect greater success in moving to transfer patent infringement suits to its home state. For digital entertainment companies that also have a retail presence, careful consideration of corporate structure and maintenance of corporate separateness is also important to controlling venue in patent infringement suits.


Although it will take more time to fully understand the effects of TC Heartland on the patent venue landscape, change has already occurred with respect to patent venue, and numerous defendants have successfully transferred cases to their home districts.

Originally published in BNA's Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions