S.D. Ohio

Court Reconsiders and Grants Motion to Transfer for Improper Venue in Light of TC Heartland

Stuebing Automatic Machine Company v. Allan Gavronsky d/b/a Matamoros Machine Shop, et al., S.D. Ohio (June 12, 2017) (Judge Karen L. Litkovitz) 

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), venue is only proper in a patent infringement suit in a jurisdiction (1) where the defendant resides, or (2) where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business. The Supreme Court’s decision in TC Heartland focused on the first test, holding that a defendant “resides” only in its state of incorporation, not that personal jurisdiction over the defendant exists, as the Federal Circuit previously held. That narrowing of the first test put renewed focus on the second test, in particular whether a defendant maintained a “regular and established place of business.” In the wake of TC Heartland, Judge Karen L. Litkovitz granted the defendants’ motion to transfer six months after she initially denied it. READ MORE

Details Matter: Two Courts’ Approaches to Personal Jurisdiction and Venue

Report & Recommendation to Deny Motion to Dismiss or Transfer, MyMail, Ltd. v. Yahoo!, Inc., E.D. Tex. (August 17, 2017) (Magistrate Judge Roy Payne)

Order Granting Motion to Dismiss, The Proctor & Gamble Company v. Ranir, LLC, S.D. Ohio (August 17, 2017) (Judge Timothy Black)

As we’ve been reporting, patent venue case law continues to develop on multiple fronts in the aftermath of the Supreme Court’s decision in TC Heartland.  In a pair of decisions discussed below, two jurisdictions—the Eastern District of Texas and the Southern District of Ohio—took contrasting approaches to how a defendant’s response to personal jurisdiction allegations affected the defendant’s ability to challenge venue. READ MORE