U.S. Supreme Court Limits Forum Shopping in Patent Infringement Litigation

On May 22, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court, through Justice Clarence Thomas, handed down its unanimous ruling (Justice Gorsuch did not participate) requiring patent owners to sue infringers in a district court in the state where the infringer is incorporated. In TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, 581 U.S. ___ (2017) the Supreme Court narrowed the definition of “resides” in the patent venue statute by holding that a domestic corporation only “resides” in the state of its incorporation, not everywhere it may be subject to personal jurisdiction due to its business operations. The effect of this decision is to eliminate “forum shopping” by plaintiffs who, prior to this decision, had the option of suing a potential infringer in any state where the infringing company had sufficient minimum contacts to establish personal jurisdiction.

Prior to TC Heartland, the generally accepted rule for the past three decades was that the term “resides” as used in the patent statute (28 U.S.C. §1400(b)) meant the same thing as “resides” as used in 28 U.S.C. §1391(c)(2), i.e., “any judicial district in which such defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to the civil action in question.” This meant a plaintiff alleging patent infringement was allowed to sue the defendant in any state where the defendant had sufficient minimum contacts to subject itself to personal jurisdiction – such as making sales into State A even though the company was incorporated in State B.

The old rule gave plaintiffs the advantage of “shopping” to sue an alleged infringer in a judicial district that was inconvenient for the defendant as long as the defendant had minimum contacts with the state in which it was sued. That is no longer allowed – now, a plaintiff must sue the alleged infringer in its state of incorporation which presumably levels the playing field a bit and interjects more predictability than what existed before in terms of “where” a patent litigation case may be filed against a domestic corporation.

Caution: The TC Heartland decision leaves unanswered some important questions: (1) whether it applies only to “domestic” corporations — it is silent as to foreign corporations; (2) whether lower courts will extend the new rule to business entities other than domestic corporations such as limited liability companies, partnerships, etc.; and (3) if and how this new rule will be applied in pending cases.

Contact us today, and see how we can help you.

Get Started

Client Testimonials

  • If you have a question pertaining to business law, litigation, or business strategies, Bruce and his team should be your first stop. Bruce takes the time, genuinely cares about your situation, and gives you 120% every time. Most importantly, he is focused on achieving results, and efficiently getting you the best solution. He brings all the expertise of a big firm, at a price point you just cannot find anywhere else. And most importantly, he is timely and responsive. Ethan F

  • Bruce is knowledgeable, conscientiousness and detail oriented. His extensive professional network along with his ability to tap into this network to resolve issues and help his clients inure greatly to his efficiency and effectiveness. Moreover, his ability to communicate with his clients and accessibility is unsurpassed.

  • “Bruce is a top-notch attorney, extensive legal knowledge and diligent in his advocacy. I have referred clients to him over the years and they let me know how pleased they were with the results and with his representation. He has also been active in the community and doesn’t hesitate to lend his support to numerous worthy causes. Highly regarded and respected. My go-to guy for many years.” Paul C., Attorney

  • Bruce is an excellent lawyer with significant expertise in trade regulation and antitrust matters. We worked together on a number of litigated matters for Fortune 100 companies. Bruce is very diligent and pays attention to detail. He has a very good strategic sense and maintains a very good relationship with his clients.

  • “Bruce Ishimatsu is not only a highly competent lawyer, but more than that, he is a person of high integrity, strong character and deep commitment. I have worked with Bruce on both law-related and leadership issues. On more than one occasion, he stood against the tide, stepped forward and spoke out for what he believed what right. Doing that took a willingness to do what was right regardless of the personal cost. For these reasons, I have great trust in Bruce and know he will persevere and go the distance for a client and to uphold justice.” Peggy N., Attorney

  • “I have known Bruce for almost 40 years and have worked with him in private practice. Bruce is a solid, prepared, and outstanding lawyer who inspires trust and confidence in his clients. He is always careful to explain the full scope of each case and the level of his engagement.
    His is consistently ethical, truthful, and strategic.”
    C. Moreno (Ret. Justice)