Wright Studio / Shutterstock.com
The US Supreme Court’s groundbreaking three-year-old ruling on patent venues has led to increasing challenges to legal requirements from creative defendants, as Jonathan Rubenstein and Patrick Plassio of Baker Botts explain.
Three years ago, the Supreme Court’s opinion in TC Heartland v Kraft Foods Group (2017) almost literally redrew the map for patent infringement litigation, shifting the permissible venues in which plaintiffs can file their suits.
The decision has led courts and litigants to focus on a provision of the patent venue statute set forth in 28 USC §1400(b) that allows venue “where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business”.
In the three years since TC Heartland, including the past year, the latter requirement of a regular and established place of business has garnered much attention. But year three of the post-TC Heartland era also saw increasing challenges to the “acts of infringement” requirement from creative defendants looking to get out of forums where they maintain a place of business.
The rest of this article is locked for subscribers only. Please login to continue reading.
If you don't have a login, you will need to purchase a subscription to gain access to this article, including all our online content. Please use this link and follow the steps.
For multi-user price options, or to check if your company has an existing subscription to us that we can add you to for FREE, please email Atif Choudhury at firstname.lastname@example.org
Baker Botts, TC Heartland, patent venue law, infringement, plaintiff, US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, internet service providers