United States: Supreme Court Limits The Reach Of Patent Venue, Forecasting Big Changes To Patent Litigation Landscape

On May 22, 2017, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC,1 a closely watched patent venue case that promises to alter the geographic landscape of patent litigation across the United States.

In an 8-0 opinion by Justice Thomas,2 the Court determined that for purposes of the patent venue statute a corporation "resides" only in its state of incorporation. Its holding relies heavily on Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Products Corp., a Supreme Court case from 1957 addressing patent venue specifically that lower courts had left by the wayside after Congress amended the venue statute that applies to civil cases generally.

The Court's decision to resurrect Fourco as authority for determining a corporation's residency in patent cases overrules the interpretation of the Federal Circuit, which had incorporated the general venue statute's broader definition of residency as commensurate with personal jurisdiction.

Critics of the Federal Circuit's interpretation have long argued that it led to excessive forum shopping, as jurisdictions perceived as more favorable to patent owners became hotbeds of patent litigation. One particularly active jurisdiction has been the Eastern District of Texas, which reportedly saw one third of all new patent cases filed last quarter. The Supreme Court's ruling in TC Heartland appears certain to force a redistribution of patent cases away from the Eastern District for the many defendants who do not have places of business in that forum.


The TC Heartland case arose out of a dispute between food and beverage industry competitors TC Heartland and Kraft Foods over "flavored drink mixes." Kraft Foods sued TC Heartland for patent infringement in the US District Court for the District of Delaware. Although TC Heartland ships allegedly infringing products to Delaware, it is not registered to do business in Delaware and has no "meaningful local presence" there. Rather, TC Heartland is headquartered and incorporated in Indiana.3 Arguing that venue in Delaware was improper, TC Heartland moved to dismiss the case or transfer venue to the Southern District of Indiana. After losing its motion in District Court, TC Heartland petitioned the Federal Circuit for a writ of mandamus. The Federal Circuit denied the petition.4

Central to this case is the interplay between the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), and the general venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c). Section 1400(b) provides that "[a]ny civil action for patent infringement 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."5 As TC Heartland had no "regular and established place of business" in Delaware, the venue dispute focused on the first clause of § 1400(b), pertaining to residency. Relying on its own precedent, the Federal Circuit looked to § 1391(c) to determine where a corporation "resides." That provision says that—"[e]xcept as otherwise provided by law"—"For all venue purposes" a corporate defendant "shall be deemed to reside ... in any judicial district in which such defendant is subject to the court's personal jurisdiction with respect to the civil action in question."6 Applying that definition to § 1400(b), the Federal Circuit found that TC Heartland did "reside" in Delaware because it was subject to the court's personal jurisdiction there, and thus, venue was proper.7

The Court's Decision

The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the definition of "reside" in § 1391(c) does not determine where a corporate "defendant resides" under the patent venue statute, § 1400(b).8

The Court relied principally on Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Products Corp., a decades-old case in which it held that under § 1400(b)—"the sole and exclusive provision controlling venue in patent infringement actions"—a domestic corporation "resides" only in its state of incorporation.9 Bolstering its analysis with a comprehensive review of the legislative history of the venue provisions, the Court concluded that Fourco's interpretation of § 1400(b) still applies.

Writing for the Court, Justice Thomas explained that the predecessor to § 1400(b)—which was enacted in 1897 to clarify the standard for venue in patent cases as distinct from the general venue statute—permitted suit in the district where a corporate defendant was an "inhabitant," or where the defendant maintained a "regular and established place of business" and had committed an act of infringement.10 At that time, a corporation was understood to "inhabit" only its state of incorporation.11 In 1948, Congress recodified the patent venue statute as today's § 1400(b), replacing the word "inhabitant" with "resides," and simultaneously enacted § 1391, which for the first time defined "residence" for corporate defendants in civil actions generally.12

Fourco, decided shortly thereafter, eliminated confusion among lower courts as to whether the definition of "residence" in § 1391(c) applied to the word "resides" in § 1400(b). The Fourco Court held that the patent venue statute operates independently from all other venue provisions, and—notwithstanding the general definition in § 1391(c) —the word "resides" in § 1400(b) had the same meaning as the pre-1948 term "inhabit[s]," i.e., a defendant's state of incorporation.13

Whereas § 1400(b) has remained unchanged since its initial enactment, § 1391(c) has been amended twice—first in 1988 and again in 2011.14 The Federal Circuit has repeatedly interpreted those amendments as signaling an intent to overrule Fourco.15

Reversing long-standing Federal Circuit precedent, the TC Heartland Court revived Fourco. The Supreme Court reasoned that, because Congress never amended § 1400(b), the particular meaning that was "definitively and unambiguously" ascribed to the term "reside" in § 1400(b) in Fourco cannot be changed without a "relatively clear indication" of Congressional intent. The Court found no such indication in revisions to § 1391(c).16

The Supreme Court's decision in TC Heartland to limit the "residence" clause of § 1400(b) to a corporate defendant's state of incorporation is a groundbreaking development that resets decades of patent venue jurisprudence.

Looking Forward

Although patent infringement plaintiffs can no longer lay venue based on a corporate defendant's "residence" in any and all districts where a court would have personal jurisdiction, the patent venue statute provides an alternative: plaintiffs may bring suit "where the defendant resides, or where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business."

With residence diminished, proper venue will likely turn on two important questions:

First, how will courts determine "where the defendant has committed acts of infringement?" Where, for example, may venue lie when a defendant spreads out system components or method steps across multiple districts17 or among multiple parties,18 or when liability is premised on acts of inducement?19

Second, how will courts assess what constitutes "a regular and established place of business?" The Supreme Court in 1915, on one hand, found no regular and established place of business where the defendant's employee in the district worked for two companies in a shared workspace, and solicited and forwarded orders to the defendant company's home office.20 The Federal Circuit in 1985, on the other hand, found a regular and established place of business where the defendant's two full-time, exclusive employees in the district worked from home, provided real-time and ongoing technical consultation, and kept a stock of products to provide to customers.21 Other circuits meanwhile addressed the issue, but no universal test emerged.22

As these questions trickle through the courts, we can expect that TC Heartland will disperse patent litigation from some uniquely concentrated hotbeds such as the Eastern District of Texas but will not eliminate forum shopping altogether.


1.TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, No. 16-341 (May 22, 2017) (slip op.).

2.Recently confirmed Justice Neil Gorsuch did not participate in the decision.

3.TC Heartland, slip op. at 2.

4.Id. at 2-3.

5.28 U.S.C. § 1400(b).

6.28 U.S.C. § 1391(a), (c).

7.In re TC Heartland LLC, 821 F. 3d 1338, 1341-45 (Fed. Cir. 2016).

8.TC Heartland, slip op. at 2.

Id. at 1, 5, 7-9 (citing Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Products Corp., 353 U.S. 222 (1957)).

9.Id. at 4.

Id. at 4 (citing Shaw v. Quincy Mining Co., 145 U.S. 444, 449-450 (1892)).

10.Id. at 5.

11.Fourco, 353 U.S., at 224, 226, 228-29.

12.TC Heartland, slip op. at 5-7.

13.TC Heartland, slip op. at 6-7 (citing VE Holding Corp. v. Johnson Gas Appliance Co., 917 F.2d 1574, 1580 (Fed. Circ. 1990)).

14TC Heartland, slip op. at 7-8. The Court was not persuaded by the proviso of § 1391(c) that it applies "{f}or all venue purposes," as the prior version at issue in Fourco used the similar catch-all phrasing "for venue purposes." Id. at 8-9. The Court further reasoned that current § 1391(c) is arguably less amenable to incorporation into § 1400(b) than prior versions, because it expressly does not apply "when otherwise provided by law." The general venue provision at issue in Fourco contained no such exception. Id. at 9. The Court also observed that in the current version of § 1391(c), Congress removed the language "under this chapter," which had provided the underpinning for the Federal Circuit's decision in VE Holding construing § 1400(b). Id. at 9-10.

15See, e.g., NTP, Inc. v. Research In Motion, Ltd., 418 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2005).

16See, e.g., Akamai Techs., Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc., 797 F.3d 1020 (Fed. Cir. 2015).

17See, e.g., Knapp-Monarch Co. v. Casco Prod. Corp., 342 F.2d 622 (7th Cir. 1965); Mid-Continent Metal Prod. Co. v. Maxon Premix Burner Co., 367 F.2d 818, 820 (7th Cir. 1966); see also Deepsouth Packing Co. v. Laitram Corp., 406 U.S. 518 (1972).

18W.S. Tyler Co. v. Ludlow-Saylor Wire Co., 236 U.S. 723 (1915); see also Gen. Radio Co. v. Superior Elec. Co., 293 F.2d 949, 951 (1st Cir. 1961) ("In that case as in this, the local salesman consummated no sales himself; his only duty with respect to sales was 'to solicit orders (and) forward them when received to the home office for execution.' It is evident from the opinion in the Tyler Co. case that this is the fact the Court considered determinative.").

19In re Cordis Corp., 769 F.2d 733 (Fed. Cir. 1985); see also Remington Rand Bus. Serv. v. Acme Card Sys. Co., 71 F.2d 628, 630 (4th Cir. 1934) ("Here we have, however, not merely the solicitation of orders, subject to the approval of the home office, but also the maintenance of a stock of goods and sales therefrom to responsible customers without prior reference to the home office; and, in addition, employees who serve customers by keeping in proper working order merchandise purchased from the defendant.").

20.See Univ. of Ill. Found. v. Channel Master Corp., 382 F.2d 514 (7th Cir. 1967); Knapp-Monarch, 342 F.2d 622 (7th Cir. 1965); Gen. Radio, 293 F.2d 949 (1st Cir. 1961); Phillips v. Baker, 121 F.2d 752 (9th Cir. 1941); Remington, 71 F.2d 628 (4th Cir. 1934); Dual Mfg. & Eng., Inc. v. Burris Inds., Inc., 531 F.2d 1382 (7th Cir. 1976).

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
Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith LLP
Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, L.L.P
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, 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