Federal Circuit Recently Established New Test For Establishing Patent Venue
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently established a new test for determining whether a corporation has a “regular and established place of business” for the purposes of establishing patent venue.
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.” If the venue is not proper, a defendant may move to dismiss the case or transfer it to a district in which the case could have been originally brought.
In TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods Group Brands, 581 U. S. (2017), the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the first prong, holding that “a domestic corporation ‘resides’ only in its state of incorporation for purposes of the patent venue statute.” The Court’s decision reversed a long-standing Federal Circuit holding that a corporation is deemed to be a resident of any judicial district in which such defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction.
Federal Circuit
In June of 2017, In Raytheon Corp. v. Cray, Inc., Judge Rodney Gilstrap of the Eastern District of Texas denied a motion to transfer venue. In reaching his decision, Judge Gilstrap established a multi-factor test for determining what constitutes a “regular and established place of business” under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). The factors included: (1) physical presence in the district; (2) defendant’s representations regarding a presence in the district; (3) benefits received from its presence in the district; and (4) targeted interactions with persons or entities in the district.
Cray, Inc. appealed the ruling via a writ of mandamus to the Federal Circuit. The federal appeals court granted the writ of mandamus and concluded, in a recent opinion, that venue was improper in the Eastern District of Texas. In rejecting the district court’s test for determining what qualifies as a “regular and established place of business,” the court wrote:
The statutory language we need to interpret is “where the defendant . . . has a regular and established place of business.” 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). The noun in this phrase is “place,” and “regular” and “established” are adjectives modifying the noun “place.” The following words, “of business,” indicate the nature and purpose of the “place,” and the preceding words, “the defendant,” indicate that it must be that of the defendant. Thus, § 1400(b) requires that “a defendant has” a “place of business” that is “regular” and “established.” All of these requirements must be present. The district court’s four-factor test is not sufficiently tethered to this statutory language and thus it fails to inform each of the necessary requirements of the statute.
In place of the district court’s test, the Federal Circuit crafted its own legal standard. Its three-pronged test includes the following requirements: (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. If any statutory requirement is not satisfied, the venue is improper under § 1400(b).
In this case, the Federal Circuit held that the district court erred in denying the motion to transfer since Cray did not have a regular and established place of business in the Eastern District of Texas. Cray is a Washington corporation which allowed two individuals to work remotely from their homes in Texas. The court found that Cray did not own, rent or lease the homes of these individuals, had not selected the locations of the homes, did not store products or literature in these homes, nor was there a showing that Cray intended to maintain a place of business there, should the two individuals move out of the district.
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
What Is a Trade Secret? Key Elements and Legal Protections Explained
What is a trade secret and why you you protect them? Technology has made trade secret theft even easier and more prevalent. In fact, businesses lose billions of dollars every year due to trade secret theft committed by employees, competitors, and even foreign governments. But what is a trade secret? And how do you protect […]
What Is Title Insurance? Safeguarding Against Title Defects
If you are considering the purchase of a property, you may wonder — what is title insurance, do I need it, and why do I need it? Even seasoned property owners may question if the added expense and extra paperwork is really necessary, especially considering that people and entities insured by title insurance make fewer […]
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
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.
Federal Circuit Further Clarifies Patent Venue Statute
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Federal Circuit Recently Established New Test For Establishing Patent Venue
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently established a new test for determining whether a corporation has a “regular and established place of business” for the purposes of establishing patent venue.
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.” If the venue is not proper, a defendant may move to dismiss the case or transfer it to a district in which the case could have been originally brought.
In TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods Group Brands, 581 U. S. (2017), the U.S. Supreme Court addressed the first prong, holding that “a domestic corporation ‘resides’ only in its state of incorporation for purposes of the patent venue statute.” The Court’s decision reversed a long-standing Federal Circuit holding that a corporation is deemed to be a resident of any judicial district in which such defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction.
Federal Circuit
In June of 2017, In Raytheon Corp. v. Cray, Inc., Judge Rodney Gilstrap of the Eastern District of Texas denied a motion to transfer venue. In reaching his decision, Judge Gilstrap established a multi-factor test for determining what constitutes a “regular and established place of business” under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). The factors included: (1) physical presence in the district; (2) defendant’s representations regarding a presence in the district; (3) benefits received from its presence in the district; and (4) targeted interactions with persons or entities in the district.
Cray, Inc. appealed the ruling via a writ of mandamus to the Federal Circuit. The federal appeals court granted the writ of mandamus and concluded, in a recent opinion, that venue was improper in the Eastern District of Texas. In rejecting the district court’s test for determining what qualifies as a “regular and established place of business,” the court wrote:
The statutory language we need to interpret is “where the defendant . . . has a regular and established place of business.” 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). The noun in this phrase is “place,” and “regular” and “established” are adjectives modifying the noun “place.” The following words, “of business,” indicate the nature and purpose of the “place,” and the preceding words, “the defendant,” indicate that it must be that of the defendant. Thus, § 1400(b) requires that “a defendant has” a “place of business” that is “regular” and “established.” All of these requirements must be present. The district court’s four-factor test is not sufficiently tethered to this statutory language and thus it fails to inform each of the necessary requirements of the statute.
In place of the district court’s test, the Federal Circuit crafted its own legal standard. Its three-pronged test includes the following requirements: (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. If any statutory requirement is not satisfied, the venue is improper under § 1400(b).
In this case, the Federal Circuit held that the district court erred in denying the motion to transfer since Cray did not have a regular and established place of business in the Eastern District of Texas. Cray is a Washington corporation which allowed two individuals to work remotely from their homes in Texas. The court found that Cray did not own, rent or lease the homes of these individuals, had not selected the locations of the homes, did not store products or literature in these homes, nor was there a showing that Cray intended to maintain a place of business there, should the two individuals move out of the district.
