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 Brian Kramer and Kevin T. Kwon
In re: HTC Corporation
The Federal Circuit recently addressed motions to transfer and drew a distinction between motions based upon the convenience of parties and witnesses and those for improper venue. It also clarified that the Supreme Court’s recent decision in TC Heartland did not supplant the long-standing rule that venue laws do not protect foreign defendants.
By Nina Cunningham
Ostensibly, GDPR’s mission is to strengthen and unify the EU’s protection of online privacy rights and promote data protection for citizens of the 28 countries currently in the EU. In the global economy, however, GDPR serves as an alarm to all countries with business flowing across Europe and well beyond. Where business flows, data follow.
By Jeff Ginsberg and Zhiqiang Liu
A Split Federal Circuit Panel Finds That Petitioner Has Standing to Challenge PTAB’s Final Written Decision and That Petitioner Properly Submitted Evidence on Reply
Federal Circuit Rejects Patent Owner’s Time-Bar Defense Based on Privity
Federal Circuit Finds That District Court May Rely on a Ground Not Raised by Any Party in Granting a Motion for Summary Judgment of Invalidity
By Richard Hung and Rachel Silverman Dolphin
In a 5-4 decision, with four justices dissenting, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s practice of instituting review on only a subset of an inter partes review (IPR) petitioner’s validity challenges.