Ideas

What TC Heartland v. Kraft Food Group Brands Means for Patent Infringement Suits

External Articles

Jennifer Tempesta published an article, “What TC Heartland v. Kraft Food Group Brands Means for Patent Infringement Suits” in IPWatchdog.com on July 11, 2017. The article examines what the Court’s holding means for patent infringement suits. In TC Heartland, the Supreme Court held that “reside[nce]” under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), the patent-specific venue statute, refers only to the state of incorporation for domestic corporations. This reasserted the Court’s earlier holding in Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirre Products Corp. in light of the Federal Circuit’s decision in VE Holding Corp. v. Johnson Gas Appliance Co.,  which had suggested that amendments to 28 U.S.C. § 1301(c), the general venue statute, had rendered moot the holding of Fourco. As district courts have begun to address the holding, two core legal questions have arisen: was improper venue an “available” defense before TC Heartland, and what is necessary to show “regular and established business”? And beyond these legal questions, questions have arisen surrounding a particular practical implication of the TC Heartland decision: will there be a new, de facto patent court?

For a copy of the article, please click the title link below.

What TC Heartland v. Kraft Food Group Brands Means for Patent Infringement Suits

Related Professionals