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 Marcus Harris and Ryan Burandt
This article discusses recovering damages for trademark infringement and various strategies for establishing those damages.
By Lewis R. Clayton and Eric Alan Stone
How, if at all, can a non-injured party that challenges a patent before the PTAB and loses may then demonstrate Article III standing to appeal to the federal courts from the PTAB’s decision upholding the patent’s validity.
By Phillip Bantz
The U.S. and China are in the midst of an escalating trade war and the DOJ has been prosecuting trade misappropriation cases against China with notable vigor as of late.
By Christine E. Weller
Converse v. ITC