AWS Servers Alone Won’t Establish Patent Venue in Virginia, Court Rules
Key Takeaway: Northern Virginia is home to datacenters that power roughly 70% of global internet traffic, including Amazon Web Services (AWS), which supports around 1.45 million businesses.1 However, a recent ruling offers crucial clarity for companies relying on AWS: simply using AWS servers in the region does not automatically establish venue for patent infringement cases in the Eastern District of Virginia.2
Article:
In a patent infringement action filed by AudioPod IP, LLC against defendants Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon.com LLC, Amazon Web Services, Inc. (AWS), and Audible, Inc., the central issue was whether Audible’s use of AWS’s Northern Virginia datacenter was enough to establish venue for the case in the Eastern District of Virginia.3
The defendants, including Audible—a Delaware corporation—moved to dismiss the case, arguing that the district was not the proper venue because Audible neither “resides” nor has a “regular and established place of business” there.4 The key question was whether Audible’s use of AWS’s servers in Ashburn, Virginia could establish such a presence. The court rejected that argument.5
The court agreed that Audible’s only “physical” presence in Virginia stemmed from its use of AWS’s Ashburn datacenter,6 where AWS installs, hosts, and maintains servers.7 But while this may have created a passive physical presence, it wasn’t enough to qualify as a “regular and established place of business.”8 Simply having servers in the district isn’t enough to meet the legal standard for patent venue. For venue to attach, the agents staffing the AWS datacenter must be actively engaged in the company’s core operations—here distributing audiobooks. But the staff of the Virginia-based servers for Audible provided, at most, server installation, operation, or maintenance.9
This ruling underscores the importance of distinguishing between passive infrastructure usage and active business operations when determining patent venue. Since Audible’s primary business—distributing audiobooks—was not performed by manned staff at the AWS Northern Virginia datacenter, the court dismissed the claims against Audible in the Eastern District of Virginia without prejudice, setting a clear precedent for future cases involving AWS and other cloud-service providers.
1 https://www.novaregion.org/1598/Data-Centers; https://hginsights.com/market-reports/hg-insights-intricately-aws-ecosystem-report-in-2022
2 Audio Pod IP, LLC v. Amazon.Com, Inc. et al, C.A. No. 3-24-cv-00406, Dkt No. 73 (E.D. Va. Mar. 3, 2025) (Young, J.) (“Dkt. 73”).
3 Dkt. 73 at 2-3, 12, 26-28.
4Id. at 26. The appropriate venue for a patent infringement suit is controlled by statute, specifically 28 U.idS.C. § 1400(b). Under this section, venue is only appropriate (1) where a defendant resides; or (2) where it has committed an alleged act of infringement and has a regular and established place of business. For option (1), Supreme Court precedent makes clear that Audible only resides in Delaware, its state of incorporation. Thus, AudioPod’s only option in this case was to establish venue is proper under option (2).
5 Dkt. 73 at 27-28. The Court also rejected AudioPod’s alternative theory that Amazon’s presence in Virginia should be imputed to Audible, finding Audible’s relationship with Amazon fell far short of the extraordinary circumstances required to disregard corporate separateness. Id. at 29-31.
6 Dkt. 73 at 2-3, 28. While Audible is also a subsidiary and controlled affiliate of defendant Amazon.com, Inc., Audible operates its principal place of business in Newark, New Jersey. Id. at 2. To establish that Audible has a regular, established place of business in the district, within the meaning of § 1400(b), three things must be true of Audible: (1) the existence of a physical place in the district; (2) that the physical place is a regular and established place of business; and (3) that the physical place “is the place of the defendant.” In re Google LLC, 949 F.3d 1338, 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (citing In re Cray Inc., 871 F.3d 1355, 1360 (Fed. Cir. 2017)).
7 Id. at 28 (citing Dkt. I Mem. Opp’n 28).
8 Id. at 28-29.
9 Id.
ABOUT BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
Baker Botts is an international law firm whose lawyers practice throughout a network of offices around the globe. Based on our experience and knowledge of our clients' industries, we are recognized as a leading firm in the energy, technology and life sciences sectors. Since 1840, we have provided creative and effective legal solutions for our clients while demonstrating an unrelenting commitment to excellence. For more information, please visit bakerbotts.com.
