TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands
U.S. Supreme Court · decided May 22, 2017 · Supreme Court Database (Spaeth)
- Decided
- May 22, 2017
- Term
- October Term 2016
- Vote
- 8–0
- Majority author
- Justice Thomas
- Issue area
- Judicial Power
- Disposition
- Reversed and remanded
- Outcome
- Petitioning party won
- Ideological direction
- Conservative
Opinion excerpt
Justice THOMAS delivered the opinion of the Court. The question presented in this case is where proper venue lies for a patent infringement lawsuit brought against a domestic corporation. The patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), provides that "[a]ny civil action for patent infringement may be brought 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." In Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Products Corp., 353 U.S. 222, 226, 77 S.Ct. 787, 1 L.Ed.2d 786 (1957), this Court concluded that for purposes of § 1400(b) a domestic corporation "resides" only in its State of incorporation. In reaching that conclusion, the Court rejected the argument that § 1400(b) incorporates the broader definition of corporate "residence" contained in the general venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c). 353 U.S., at 228, 77 S.Ct. 787. Congress has not amended § 1400(b) since this Court construed it in Fourco, but it has amended § 1391 twice. Section 1391 now provides that, "[e]xcept as otherwise provided by law" and "[f]or all venue purposes," a corporation "shall be deemed to reside, if a defendant, in any judicial district in which such defendant is subject to the court's personal jurisdiction with respect to the civil action in question." §§ 1391(a), (c). The issue in this case is whether…
Excerpt of a 18,023-character opinion. The full text and citation network load in the interactive viewer above.