Call 855-808-4530 or email GroupSales@alm.com to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Venue in patent cases lies “in the judicial district where the defendant resides, or where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business.” 28 U.S.C. §1400(b). Since 1990, the Federal Circuit interpreted the term “resides” coextensively with the general venue statute such that patent venue lay where the defendant was subject to personal jurisdiction. See, VE Holding Corp. v Johnson Gas Appliance Co., 917 F2d 1574, 1578 (1990). Minimum contacts required for personal jurisdiction are substantially less than a “regular and established” place of business. So, the court’s broad definition of “resides” essentially made §1400(b)’s alternative phrase unnecessary. But this year, the Supreme Court greatly narrowed that definition. See, TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods Group Brands, 137 S. Ct. 1514, 1517 (2017). The Federal Circuit, in turn, interpreted the newly-relevant alternative phrase. In re Cray, ___ F.3d ___, 2017 WL 4201535 at 4 (Fed. Cir. 2017). After two decades of relaxed patent venue rules, these decisions work a seismic shift in patent litigation.
By Karen Hoffman Lent and Kenneth Schwartz
The DOJ’s intervention, and the judge’s ultimate decision, has exposed tensions between the DOJ and FTC, and within the FTC itself, and public scrutiny is far from over as the case heads to the Ninth Circuit on appeal.
By Nicole D. Galli
In the last five years, the courts have instead began wading into policy setting without the tools and resources to fully consider all the issues and various interests. Thus, the recent congressional efforts to consider these questions is welcome and, frankly, overdue.
By Scott Graham
Fifteen states had argued that they and their public universities shouldn’t have to expose their patents to validity review at the patent trial and appeal board.
By Jeffrey S. Ginsberg and Abhishek Bapna
Federal Circuit Finds District Court Erred in Analysis of Motivation to Combine Prior Art References, Yet Affirms Ultimate Conclusion of Non-obviousness Due to the Lack of a Reasonable Expectation of Success
Federal Circuit Rules that Issue Preclusion Bars a Party from Arguing in an Appeal of an Inter Partes Review Decision an Issue Previously Decided in Another Inter Partes Review Proceeding that Was Not Appealed