Term: 2016
Docket: 16-341
Tc Heartland Llc v. Kraft Foods Group Brands
- Pro
16-341 TC HEARTLAND LLC V. KRAFT FOODS BRANDS GROUP LLC DECISION BELOW: 821 F3d 1338 CERT. GRANTED 12/14/2016 QUESTION PRESENTED: The patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), provides that patent infringement actions "may be brought in the judicial district where the defendant resides .... " The statute governing "[v]enue generally," 28 U.S.C. § 1391, has long contained a subsection (c) that, where applicable, deems a corporate entity to reside in multiple judicial districts. In Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Products Corp., 353 U.S. 222 (1957), this Court held that § 1400(b) is not to be supplemented by§ 1391(c), and that as applied to corporate entities, the phrase "where the defendant resides" in § 1400(b) "mean[s] the state of incorporation only." Id. at 226. The Court's opinion concluded: "We hold that 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) is the sole and exclusive provision controlling venue in patent infringement actions, and that it is not to be supplemented by the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (c)." Id. at 229 . Federal Circuit precedent holds to the contrary. Although Congress has not amended § 1400(b) since Fourco, the Federal Circuit has justified its departure from Fourco’s interpretation of§ 1400(b) based on amendments to § 1391(c). As stated in the decision below, Federal Circuit precedent holds that "the definition of corporate residence in the general venue statute, § 1391(c), applie[s] to the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400" (App. 4a) and that "Fourco was not and is not the prevailing law" (App. Sa) on where venue is proper in patent infringement actions under § 1400(b). The question in this case is thus precisely the same as the issue decided in Fourco: Whether 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) is the sole and exclusive provision governing venue in patent infringement actions and is not to be supplemented by 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c). LOWER COURT CASE NUMBER: 2016-105
The U.S. Supreme Court case TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands, 2016 revolved around the issue of patent litigation and venue selection. Kraft Foods sued TC Heartland in Delaware for alleged infringement on its patents, even though TC Heartland was based in Indiana and had minimal presence in Delaware. The central question was whether a domestic corporation could be sued anywhere it delivers its products into the market or only where it is incorporated or has an established place of business as per federal law (28 U.S.C §1400(b)). In May 2017, the court ruled unanimously that under this specific statute, a company can only be sued for patent infringement either where it is incorporated or where it has committed acts of infringement and maintains a regular place of business.
In the TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands case, there was no formal dissenting opinion as the decision was unanimous (8-0). The Supreme Court ruled in favor of TC Heartland, overturning a lower court's ruling and significantly limiting where patent lawsuits can be filed. They held that domestic corporations "reside" only in their state of incorporation for purposes of the patent venue statute. This effectively curtailed forum shopping, a practice wherein plaintiffs choose courts that are historically favorable to them regardless of any real connection between the lawsuit and that jurisdiction.
