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." 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. But this year, the Supreme Court greatly narrowed that definition in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods. The Federal Circuit, in turn, interpreted the newly-relevant alternative phrase. After two decades of relaxed patent venue rules, these decisions work a seismic shift in patent litigation.
- November 02, 2017Conor Tucker
Split Federal Circuit Declined to Reconsider Panel's Decision that Lost Profits Based on the Panduit Factors Are Fully Apportioned
On Sept. 1, 2017, a split Federal Circuit declined to rehear a panel decision in Mentor Graphics Corp. v. EVE-USA, Inc., a case that could have significant implications for lost profit damages and apportionment.
October 02, 2017Amy Proctor and Molly RussellStrategies to Defend Against Patent Claims by Raising Lack of Patentable Subject Matter in District Court Litigation
With the Supreme Court's decision in Alice, parties defending against a claim of patent infringement gained a potential way to find an early resolution to patent litigation.
September 02, 2017Louis L. Touton, Steven J. Corr and Nickou Oskoui



