Use of Amazon Warehouses for Distribution Alone Won't Establish Patent Venue, Court Rules
Key Takeaway: Just as over a million businesses use Amazon web servers,[1] many independent sellers also use Amazon warehouses to store their inventory. More than 60% of sales in the Amazon store come from independent sellers, many of which are small and medium-sized businesses.[2] A recent ruling offers crucial clarity for these sellers who have an Amazon store: simply using Amazon warehouses and distribution facilities in a region does not automatically establish it as a proper venue for patent infringement cases.[3]
In a patent infringement action filed by the cryptically named CKI 2712218 LLC against defendant G & L Decor Inc., the central issue was whether the defendant’s use of Amazon warehouses in the Southern District of Florida was enough to establish venue for the case in the district.[4]
The New York defendant moved to dismiss the case for improper venue, arguing that it neither “resides” nor has a “regular and established place of business” in the district.[5] The key question was whether the defendant’s use of Amazon warehouses in Jupiter, Florida could establish such a regular and established place of business when the defendant has not established, ratified, or controlled these warehouses.[6]
The court agreed that the defendant’s only “physical” presence in Florida stemmed from its use of Amazon fulfillment centers to distribute its products.[7] While storing products may have created a physical presence, it wasn’t enough to qualify as a “regular and established” place of business of the defendant. The defendant had no employees at the Amazon warehouses.[8] So storing products and merely facilitating their distribution to customers via shipments from the Amazon warehouses was not enough to establish patent venue.[9]
The court also rejected the notion of an agency relationship between Amazon and the defendant.[10] While the defendant paid a “lease fee” to Amazon, it did not co-own or lease the facilities to use as its own, making the relationship more akin to a contract to distribute, than a lease of a physical location for conducting business.[11] Indeed, the defendant did not own land or personal property in Florida and was not licensed to do business there.[12] And no evidence showed that the defendant was able to control the distribution process or any activity within the Amazon warehouses.[13]
This ruling once again underscores the importance of distinguishing between passive use of infrastructure and a defendant’s active business operations when determining patent venue.[14] This aligns with a prior precedent in other districts and continues to set a clear pathway for future cases involving sellers who use Amazon fulfillment centers to store and distribute products.[15]
[1] https://www.bakerbotts.com/Thought-Leadership/Publications/2025/March/AWS-Servers-Alone-Wont-Establish-Patent-Venue-in-Virginia-Court-Rules.
[2] https://sell.amazon.com/blog/amazon-stats.
[3] CKI 2712218 LLC v. G & L Décor Inc., C.A. No. 24-81447, Dkt No. 25 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 17, 2025) (Middlebrooks, J.) (“Dkt. 25”).
[4] Dkt. 25 at 2.
[5] Id. at 5-9. The appropriate venue for a patent infringement suit is controlled by statute. See 28 U.S.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 defendant only resides in New York, its state of incorporation, as plaintiff concedes. Dkt. 25 at 3-4. Thus, plaintiff’s only option in this case was to establish venue is proper under option (2).
[6] Dkt. 25 at 2.
[7] Id. at 5, 8-9.
[8] Id. at 6.
[9] Id. at 7.
[10] Id. at 6.
[11] Id. at 8.
[12] Id.
[13] Id. at 6-9.
[14] https://www.bakerbotts.com/Thought-Leadership/Publications/2025/March/AWS-Servers-Alone-Wont-Establish-Patent-Venue-in-Virginia-Court-Rules.
[15] The court cites Reflection, LLC v. Spire Collective LLC, No. 17- cv-1603, 2018 WL 310184, (S.D. Cal., Jan. 5, 2018), a case decided on nearly identical facts where the court also concluded that the Amazon fulfillment centers at issue did not constitute a regular and established place of business under Section 1400(b) for the sellers who utilized the centers to store and distribute its products. Dkt. 25 at 9-10.
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.
