Technology Law and Electronic Media Update
May 22 2017
US Supreme Court Takes a Whack at Patent Trolls
In the case TC Heartland v Kraft Foods, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed cases
that permitted patent plaintiffs to sue companies for patent infringement in any of a wide
range of federal courts in locales where “jurisdiction” over the defendant could be established.
This resulted in the Eastern District of Texas, north and east of Dallas, becoming a favored
federal court for patent plaintiffs because of the rules the court instituted that favored patent
plaintiffs. In the opinion released yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the language in
a statute that determines a proper “venue” for patent lawsuits is exclusive (as to U.S.
corporations), such that “[a]ny civil action for patent infringement may be brought [only] in the
judicial district where the defendant resides [now interpreted as “incorporated”], or where the
defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of
business.” Many U.S. targets of patent trolls are not incorporated in Texas and do not maintain
regular offices among the cattle ranches of north-eastern Texas. As a result, many of these
patent cases in the Eastern District of Texas would seem to be in the wrong venue. Patent
plaintiffs might be concerned that this strict definition of proper venue could provide
defendants home court advantage. Note that with respect to non-U.S. corporations as
defendants to a patent infringement lawsuit, the Court said that its opinion did not change
existing procedural law—which has found that patent case venue requirements do not apply to
foreign defendants. It is interesting that the Attorney General of Texas filed an amicus brief
advocating for this outcome—despite the fact that patent litigation had become a significant
local industry in the small cities of Marshall and Tyler, Texas.