Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Date: December 13, 2017
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comThe U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in TC Heartland represented a change in the law, according to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. The key patent decision resolves a split among the district courts and should allow for venue transfer in many more patent infringement cases.
In TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods Group Brands, , the Supreme Court held that patent infringement lawsuits must be filed where the defendant is incorporated, limiting the ability to pursue cases in more favorable jurisdictions. As Justice Clarence Thomas wrote on behalf of the Court, “a domestic corporation ‘resides’ only in its state of incorporation for purposes of the patent venue statute.”
The Supreme Court ruling overturned the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals’ interpretation of two venue statutes. 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…” Meanwhile, under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c), a corporation is deemed to be a resident of “any judicial district in which such defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction…”
In its decision, the Supreme Court rejected the Federal Circuit’s long-standing precedent holding that 1988 amendments to the venue statute “rendered the statutory definition of corporate residence found in § 1391 applicable to patent cases.” Accordingly, the Court’s decision significantly reduced the number of places where a corporate defendant may be sued, limiting suits to districts where the defendant is incorporated or the defendant infringes the patent and has a regular and established place of business.
In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision, the venue is now improper in hundreds of pending patent infringement suits. However, the district courts have failed to agree on whether the improper venue claims have already been waived.
A defendant objecting to the venue may file a motion to dismiss for improper venue under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3). However, Rule 12(g)(2), in relevant part, states that “a party that makes a motion under this rule must not make another motion under this rule raising a defense or objection that was available to the party but omitted from its earlier motion. Rule 12(h)(1)(A) further provides for a waiver when a defendant omits an “available” venue defense from an initial motion to dismiss.
In In re: Micron, No. 17-00138 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 15, 2017), Micron Technology, Inc. petitioned for a writ of mandamus, seeking to set aside the district court’s denial of its motion to dismiss or transfer the case for improper venue. The court concluded that the Supreme Court’s decision in TC Heartland was not a change of law that would make Rule 12(g)(2) and hence Rule 12(h)(1)(A) inapplicable.
The Federal Circuit reversed. It held that the Supreme Court’s decision changed the controlling law and was not merely a course correction. Accordingly, the venue objection was not available to Micron when it filed its original motion to dismiss. As the court’s opinion explains:
The Rule 12 waiver question presented here is whether the venue defense was “available” to Micron in August 2016. We conclude as a matter of law that it was not. The venue objection was not available until the Supreme Court decided TC Heartland because, before then, it would have been improper, given controlling precedent, for the district court to dismiss or to transfer for lack of venue…
This is a common-sense interpretation of Rule 12(g)(2). Where controlling law precluded the district court, at the time of the motion, from adopting a defense or objection and on that basis granting the motion, it is natural to say, in this context, that the defense or objection was not “available” to the movant.
Notably, the Federal Circuit further noted that “Rule 12(h)(1) is not the sole basis on which a district court might, in various circumstances, rule that a defendant can no longer present a venue defense that might have succeeded on the merits.” Accordingly, forfeiture may still occur even where Rule 12(h)(1) is inapplicable. By way of example, the appeals court highlighted that a motion brought too close to trial may still be denied.
If you have any questions or if you would like to discuss your copyright, trademark, or patent legal needs, feel free to contact me, William Samuels, at 201-806-3364.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Special purpose acquisition companies (better known as SPACs) appear to be making a comeback. SPAC offerings for 2025 have already nearly surpassed last year’s totals, with additional transactions in the pipeline. SPACs last experienced a boom between 2020–2021, with approximately 600 U.S. companies raising a record $163 billion in 2021. Notable companies that went public […]
Author: Dan Brecher
Merging two companies is a complex legal and business transaction. A short form merger, in which an acquiring company merges with a subsidiary corporation, offers a more streamlined process. However, like all M&A transactions, it is important to understand the legal nuances and proper due diligence in mergers and acquisitions. What Is a Short Form […]
Author: Dan Brecher
The Trump Administration’s new tariffs are having an oversized impact on small businesses, which already tend to operate on razor thin margins. Many businesses have been forced to raise prices, find new suppliers, lay off staff, and delay growth plans. For businesses facing even more dire financial circumstances, there are additional tariff response options, including […]
Author: Brian D. Spector
Business partnerships, much like marriages, function exceptionally well when partners are aligned but can become challenging when disagreements arise. Partnership disputes often stem from conflicts over business strategy, financial management, and unclear role definitions among partners. Understanding Business Partnership Conflicts Partnership conflicts place significant stress on businesses, making proactive measures essential. Partnerships should establish detailed […]
Author: Christopher D. Warren
*** The original article was featured on Bloomberg Tax, April 28, 2025 — As a tax attorney who spends much of my time helping people and companies who have large, unresolved issues with the IRS or one or more state tax departments, it often occurs to me that the best service that I can provide […]
Author: Scott H. Novak
On January 28, 2025, the Trump Administration terminated Gwynne Wilcox from her position as a Member of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or the Board). Gwynne Wilcox, a union side lawyer for Levy Ratner, was confirmed to the Board for an original term in 2021 and confirmed again for a successive five-year term expiring […]
Author: Matthew F. Mimnaugh
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!