The United States Supreme Court decided earlier this year that a 1957 opinion is still valid and still limits venue choices for patent infringement actions under 28 U.S.C. § 1400.  See TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, 581 U.S. ___ (2017) (citing Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Products Corp., 353 U.S. 222, 226 (1957)).  In its extensively-covered TC Heartland decision issued in May, the Court held that “[a]s applied to domestic corporations, ‘reside[nce]’ in § 1400(b) refers only to the State of incorporation,” where the accused infringer has a “regular and established place of business” in the venue. While framed as merely confirmation of precedent from the 1950s, many practitioners and commentators viewed this decision as a dramatic change in the patent litigation landscape.

Since TC Heartland came down, lower courts have applied the new paradigm in differing ways.  As trends have developed in recent months, we thought it useful to provide a sampling of the various approaches to venue issues post-TC Heartland.  These issues include, for example, whether defendants who did not contest venue prior to the TC Heartland decision waived the defense of improper venue because the case was—or was not—an “intervening change” in the law, and how to assess whether a defendant has regular and established place of business in a particular venue.

Continue Reading Making the Sausage: Lower Courts Grapple With the Supreme Court’s TC Heartland Venue Decision

The Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) Ex Parte Seizure mechanism allows victims of trade secret misappropriation to quickly prevent further dissemination of confidential information by asking a court to direct federal marshals to seize stolen trade secret material and secure that material during the pendency of a formal DTSA case. The DTSA directs that civil seizure only be used in “extraordinary circumstances,” however, and courts entertaining requests for civil seizure have hewed closely to this directive. See, e.g., OOO Brunswick Rail Mgt. v. Sultanov, Case No. 5:17-cv-00017 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 6, 2017) (denying request for civil seizure and instead ordering preservation of devices at issue pursuant to Rule 65); Magnesita Refractories Co. v. Mishra, 2:16-cv-524 (N.D. Ind. Jan. 25, 2017) (same); Dazzle Software II, LLC v. Kinney, Case No. 1:16-cv-12191 (E.D. Mich. July 18, 2016) (denying request for civil seizure where court not convinced that defendant would not comply with order under Rule 65); Balearia Caribbean Ltd. Corp. v. Calvo, Case No. 1:16-cv-23300 (S.D. Fla. Aug 5, 2016) (“a plaintiff may not rely on bare assertions that the defendant, if given notice, would destroy relevant evidence”).

In what appears to be the first civil seizure order under the DTSA, in Mission Capital Advisors LLC v. Romaka, No. 16-cv-5878 (S.D.N.Y. July 29, 2016), the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York ordered federal marshals to seize contact lists and other electronically-stored information that was allegedly misappropriated by Defendant, a former employee of Plaintiff. The circumstances of this case provide insight into what “extraordinary circumstances” are necessary for a district court to order civil seizure under the DTSA. Continue Reading DTSA and Ex Parte Seizure – Lessons from the First Ex Parte Seizure Under The DTSA

The Supreme Court’s decision five months ago in TC Heartland v. Kraft Food Group Brands was a sea change in the way courts interpret venue for patent infringement cases.  Since the Federal Circuit’s decision in VE Holding Corp. v. Johnson Gas Appliance Co., 917 F.2d 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1990), venue in patent infringement cases has been determined using 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c), which equates a corporate defendant’s residence with personal jurisdiction.  In TC Heartland, the Supreme Court effectively abrogated VE Holding by finding that a corporate defendant “resides” only in its State of incorporation for venue purposes.

Continue Reading District Courts Remain Split on TC Heartland and Waiver of Improper Venue Defense

The U.S. Supreme Court announced its ruling in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC on May 22, 2017, a patent infringement case that has garnered national attention for its implications on venue. This case originated with a motion to transfer an action filed in the District of Delaware to the Southern District of Indiana, where the Defendant accused of patent infringement is headquartered. However, the national attention has focused on the possibility that a significant amount of other patent litigation may now shift to the District of Delaware. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari at the end of last year and heard oral arguments in March to address the question of “where proper venue lies for a patent infringement lawsuit brought against a domestic corporation.” The Court has now provided a response to this key question, although a few issues still remain.

Continue Reading Patent Litigation Venue: Supreme Court Clarifies Venue Statutes in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods.

 

Leaving EDTX.pngOn Monday, March 27, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral argument in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, a case that could have a profound impact on where patent infringement cases may be litigated.

Although this case has focused a lot of attention on the Eastern District of Texas – a hotbed of patent litigation – it wasn’t even filed in that district. TC Heartland moved to transfer a patent infringement action that Kraft Foods filed in the District of Delaware (a distant second to the Eastern District of Texas in terms of the volume of patent litigation) to the Southern District of Indiana, where TC Heartland is headquartered. After that motion was denied, TC Heartland appealed to the Federal Circuit, arguing that the patent venue statute (28 U.S.C. §1400(b)), not the general venue statute (§1391(c)), sets forth the requirements for venue in patent cases, a position that would limit the venues available to plaintiffs in most infringement actions. In denying TC Heartland’s petition, the Federal Circuit reaffirmed its long-standing view that patent suits may be filed in any judicial district in which the defendant sells an allegedly infringing product. But the U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari on the appeal, perhaps signaling the Court’s willingness to overturn almost 30 years of practice.

Continue Reading Will 30 Years Of Practice Be Overturned? Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument In TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods.

Did Qualcomm utilize anticompetitive licensing tactics to extract excessive royalties from OEMs for its standard-essential patents (SEPs)? Is the company seeking to weaken its competitors by refusing to license its patents on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms? The Federal Trade Commission thinks so and filed suit against Qualcomm on January 17 in the Northern District of California for allegedly monopolizing the market for CDMA and LTE baseband processor technologies.

Issuance of the complaint was authorized on a 2-1 vote of the Commission, which hinged on the vote of President Obama-appointed FTC Chairwoman Edith Ramirez, so the Inauguration of Donald J. Trump as President on Friday may have direct implications on this case.

The Mintz Levin team discusses the case and points out the irony of the timing since the FTC and Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued their revised Antitrust Guidelines for the Licensing of Intellectual Property on January 13, in which they declined to adopt guidelines relating to precisely this sort of conduct.

Read our full discussion.

shutterstock_484403530The New Year brings excitement and anticipation of changes for the best.  Some of the pending patent cases provide us with ample opportunity to expect something new and, if not always very desirable to everybody, at least different.  In this post, we highlight several cases that present interesting issues and that we anticipate may provide for new and important developments in the patent law this year.

Continue Reading IP Cases to Watch in 2017

On May 11, 2016, President Obama signed the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) into law. This important new legislation creates a federal private civil cause of action for trade secret misappropriation in which “[a]n owner of a trade secret that is misappropriated may bring a civil action . . . if the trade secret is related to a product or service used in, or intended for use in, interstate or foreign commerce.” Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016, S. 1890, Sec. 2. The statute does not preempt existing state trade secret law regimes, but will exist in parallel, adding an enhanced toolbox of options for American companies’ enforcement of their intellectual property rights.

One provision of the new DTSA that has generated much commentary in the run up to its enactment is the new civil seizure mechanism established by the statute. This mechanism allows a court to “issue an order providing for the seizure of property necessary to prevent the propagation or dissemination of the trade secret that is the subject of the action.” The civil seizure process will allow American companies who are aware of a potential misappropriation of their trade secrets to quickly prevent further exposure of proprietary information during the pendency of a formal DTSA case.

Continue Reading Protections of the Newly Enacted Defend Trade Secrets Act

The Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) is now one signature away from becoming law. On April 4, 2016, the Senate unanimously passed the DTSA and, last week, on April 27, the House of Representatives followed suit, passing the DTSA by a vote of 410-2. The DTSA thus has wide bipartisan support and President Obama, who expressed his own strong support for the bill, is expected to sign the bill into law in the near future.

Once enacted, the DTSA will create a federal private civil cause of action for trade secret misappropriation. Under the DTSA, “[a]n owner of a trade secret that is misappropriated may bring a civil action . . . if the trade secret is related to a product or service used in, or intended for use in, interstate or foreign commerce.” Defend Trade Secrets Act of 2016, S. 1890, Sec. 2. Civil remedies for trade secret misappropriation have previously been a matter of state law, but, with the passage of the DTSA, an additional avenue of redress will be made available for a party seeking to remedy improper acquisition of its trade secrets. The DTSA gives United States district courts original jurisdiction over actions under the statute. The statute will not preempt existing state trade secret laws, but will exist in parallel, adding an enhanced toolbox of options for American companies’ enforcement of their intellectual property rights.

Below is an explanation of some of the salient provisions of the DTSA that American companies should be aware of as the DTSA moves onto the President’s desk. We will be monitoring DTSA jurisprudence following its enactment and will provide continuing commentary on the new law – check back for regular updates.

Continue Reading Explaining the Provisions of the Defend Trade Secrets Act