United States: 6 Months After TC Heartland, Adjusting To A New Landscape

Last Updated: November 28 2017
Article by Nathan R. Speed and Stuart V.C. Duncan Smith

The U.S. Supreme Court's May 22, 2017, decision in TC Heartland, which overturned decades of accepted practice on how to evaluate the proper venue for patent litigation, has been lauded by some as ushering in a new era in patent litigation. Others — including some federal district court judges who have been applying TC Heartland — have found the decision to be much less significant, or do not see that it has had any legal effect. Though six months have passed since the Supreme Court's decision, we still do not know with certainty which understanding of the decision is correct.

We do know that since the TC Heartland decision, there has been a shift in where patent litigation occurs. In July 2016, when TC Heartland first indicated its intent to appeal its case to the Supreme Court, the Eastern District of Texas received roughly 45 percent of new patent cases. By October 2017, its share was down to about 14 percent of new patent cases. While that change is dramatic, it is still too early to define the legacy of TC Heartland, since many of the big questions about what the decision will mean for patent litigation remain unanswered.

The Shifting Landscape?

One measure of the effect of TC Heartland is where plaintiffs are filing new cases, and by that measure, the change since TC Heartland is clear. The Eastern District of Texas, the forum of choice for many plaintiffs from around the country, no longer reigns as the most popular venue for patent litigation. In the six months since TC Heartland, 14 percent of new patent cases have been filed in that district. In the same period in 2016, 37 percent of new patent cases were filed there. Thus, the Eastern District of Texas' patent cases, measured as a percentage of new patent cases, has fallen by over 60 percent.

The District of Delaware has seen its fraction of new patent cases increase the most. In the six months since TC Heartland, plaintiffs have filed 23 percent of new patent cases in the District of Delaware, compared with 11 percent of cases during the same period in 2016. Other district courts have also seen increases. In the same time period, the Northern District of California's share of new patent cases grew from 3 percent to 7 percent, the Northern District of Illinois grew from 3 percent to 6 percent, the Central District of California grew from 7 percent to 9 percent, and the District of New Jersey grew from 4 percent to 5 percent. Other districts collectively increased from 32 percent to 36 percent of new patent cases.

This shift does not, however, tell the whole story of the effect of TC Heartland. Uncertainty created by the case may have affected plaintiffs' choice of forum as much as the Supreme Court decision itself. Even before the decision, the case created uncertainty that coincided with, and may have driven, a large shift away from the Eastern District of Texas. In the six months before the decision, which roughly corresponds with the period during which the parties briefed and argued the case at the Supreme Court, the Eastern District of Texas' share of new patent cases fell to 35 percent from 41 percent during the same period one year prior.

The effect of uncertainty is further illustrated by the effect of one interpretation of the TC Heartland decision by one judge in the Eastern District of Texas. That judge is Judge Rodney Gilstrap, who personally handles as much as a quarter of all patent cases in the United States. That district's share of new patent cases fell from 30 percent in May 2017, the month that TC Heartland was decided, to 15 percent in June 2017. However, near the end of June 2017, Judge Gilstrap interpreted TC Heartland's effect narrowly. The following month, the district share of new patent cases rebounded to 24 percent. But the bounce was short-lived: The Federal Circuit rejected Judge Gilstrap's interpretation in September 2017, and in October 2017, the district's share of new cases was down to 14 percent.

This data illustrates two points. First, the landscape has clearly shifted and knocked the Eastern District of Texas off its perch as the most popular venue for patent litigation. To be sure, it remains a popular place to file—behind only the District of Delaware, according to the latest statistics. Second, uncertainty about how TC Heartland will apply appears to drive at least some of the shift. As we learn more about how the Federal Circuit will interpret the decision, the distribution of new patent cases may change. Until the meaning of TC Heartland is more fully understood, it is too early to say whether the shift away from the Eastern District of Texas to the District of Delaware is an overreaction, underreaction, or just right.

A Regular and Established Place of Business?

Under the governing statute, venue in a patent case is proper wherever the defendant (1) resides or (2) "committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business." For the past several decades, the Federal Circuit interpreted "resides" to include essentially anywhere that alleged infringing products or services reached. For most large companies doing business in the United States, that was often everywhere. TC Heartland constrained "resides" to just the state where a company is incorporated, which is often Delaware or the defendant's home state. For plaintiffs that want to litigate elsewhere, the question then is whether the defendant has "a regular and established place of business" there. As of right now, how to make that determination remains unclear.

The Federal Circuit has only twice addressed the meaning of the requirement that the defendant "has a regular and established place of business." Both cases concerned companies with salespeople living in the forum district. First, In re Cordis Corp. held in 1985 that having salespeople in the forum district whose homes were used by the company to store inventory and who were supported by a secretarial service could be sufficient. The court reasoned that "a fixed physical presence in the sense of a formal office or store" is not required so long as the "defendant does its business in that district through a permanent and continuous presence there."

The second time that the Federal Circuit addressed this question was just last September in In re Cray Inc. The court did not overrule its earlier decision in Cordis, and affirmed that the defendant need not have a "formal office or store." However, it held that the salespeople's homes in the forum district were not used by the defendant to service customers in the district, nor was company literature or product stored in those home offices, and so they were not the defendant's "place of business." On this basis, the court distinguished the case from Cordis and ordered the district court to transfer it.

Thus, while those cases provide some insight into whether having salespeople living in the district means that the defendant "has a regular and established place of business," they only scratch the surface of whether other situations will be sufficient. What about companies with other kinds of activities in the forum district, such as franchises, distributors, or seasonal work? The Cray decision expounded on the meaning of the statute, but did not fully clarify the meaning of terms like "regular and established." Until the Federal Circuit addresses more cases on this issue, the full scope of the TC Heartland decision will continue to be uncertain.

Waiver of the Venue Defense?

While the data on new patent cases shows a shift away from the Eastern District of Texas, cases that were already pending when the Supreme Court decided TC Heartland face a unique challenge. In many instances, given the pre-TC Heartland standard, the defendants did not contest venue at the start of the case. Though failing to raise the defense of venue typically waives it, defendants may be able to avoid that by arguing that TC Heartland was an unanticipated change in the law that made the defense available where it previously was not. Currently, litigants do not have a clear answer whether that argument will work.

The Federal Circuit recently decided in In re Micron that TC Heartland was a change in the law, because for many defendants the defense of venue was not available under the Federal Circuit's pre-TC Heartland case law. However, given the facts of Micron, the decision does not necessarily resolve whether all defendants who arguably waived the venue defense are now free to raise it. The defendant in this particular case waived the venue defense before the Supreme Court decided to review TC Heartland and moved to dismiss directly after the Supreme Court issued its decision. Plaintiffs may argue that Micron does not apply to defendants that waived the defense while the case was pending in the Supreme Court or waited to move until after Micron.

A further hurdle may exist for defendants in the Fifth Circuit, which includes the Eastern District of Texas. Though Micron declined to consider differences between the regional circuits, whether a change of law excuses waiver of a defense is an issue presently being litigated in the Fifth Circuit. Some plaintiffs have argued that the Fifth Circuit does not excuse the failure to raise a defense, even when a change of the law makes that defense available. Up until Micron, district courts in the Fifth Circuit could avoid the issue by concluding that TC Heartland did not change the law. However, after Micron, the question of the Fifth Circuit's treatment of waiver is front and center. The same day as the decision in Micron, Judge Gilstrap ruled that a change of law would not excuse waiver of the venue defense. Appeal of this case, or others like it, is likely.

These issues demonstrate that many questions remain for defendants in cases that were pending in potentially improper venues when TC Heartland was decided. The ways that the Federal Circuit resolves these issues will have a huge impact on how TC Heartland applies to the parties in these cases.

Will Congress Act?

During the lead-up to TC Heartland, momentum had been building for legislative reform to venue requirements. Venue is a statutory requirement, unlike the constitutionally underpinned personal jurisdiction requirement, and so Congress is free to amend those rules. Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, chairman of the Senate Republican High-Tech Task Force, identified patent venue reform as among the legislative priorities for the current Congress in February 2017. In his statement, Sen. Hatch noted the then-pending TC Heartland appeal in the Supreme Court and suggested that legislative reform would be needed regardless of the outcome.

Nevertheless, legislative efforts to reform patent venue stalled after TC Heartland. The prior Congress had considered the VENUE Act (S.2733) and the Innovation Act (H.R.9). Both acts would have restricted patent venue relative to the pre-TC Heartland rule — though not to the extent that TC Heartland has. Thus, both bills appear motivated, at least in part, by a desire to combat the perceived problem of patent owners dragging defendants into court in a district with no connection to the parties. Now that the Supreme Court has restricted venue beyond even what Congress was contemplating, it is not clear that Congress has any appetite to expand patent owners' options. If application of TC Heartland reveals practical problems with the current rule, especially among influential patent plaintiffs, interest in reform may return.

Where Do We Go From Here?

The full consequences of TC Heartland remain unclear. It has caused a major shift in where plaintiffs choose to file new patent cases. However, whether the new distribution will continue as we learn more about how TC Heartland will be applied is uncertain. As with previous instances when the Supreme Court has stirred the pot of patent litigation, the effect of its intervention cannot be fully understood until litigants and courts have time to apply the new rules to a range of cases. Litigants making decisions involving venue must stay informed about the courts' application of TC Heartland so that they can properly manage the risks associated with the choice of where to litigate.

Originally published in Law360

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
Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
In association with
Related Topics
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
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