Recently, the Supreme Court reversed the Federal Circuit in the case of TC HEARTLAND LLC v. KRAFT FOODS GROUP BRANDS LLC, holding that the general venue statute does not supplant the venue statute specifically applicable to patent infringement suits. The Supreme Court explained that “resides” in the patent venue statute has a particular meaning as applied to domestic corporations: It refers only to the State of incorporation.
The Supreme Court changes the longstanding practice on where patent owners may sue domestic corporations for alleged patent infringement. After TC HEARTLAND, the residence of a domestic corporation means the State of incorporation for venue purposes. This decision will limit where a plaintiff may bring a patent infringement action, and may significantly decrease the number of suits in popular venues, such as the Eastern District of Texas. However, these other questions were not decided in TC HEARTLAND: (1) what is proper venue for foreign corporations and unincorporated entities sued for patent infringement; and (2) what is a domestic corporation’s “regular and established place of business”, where venue may also be appropriate in addition to the place of a corporation’s “residence.” The case can be read here.