The Federal Circuit today clarified what it means to have “a regular and established place of business” to satisfy the venue requirement in patent litigation under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). As we previously reported here, on June 29, Judge Gilstrap denied transfer in this case and set out a four-factor test to consider in establishing venue in a particular district—including physical presence, defendant’s representations, benefits received, and targeted interactions. Defendant Cray, Inc. then petitioned for a writ of mandamus. READ MORE
On June 29, 2017, Judge Gilstrap of the Eastern District of Texas issued an opinion analyzing the factors to consider when determining whether, in the absence of “residence” in the district, a defendant “has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business” there for purposes of satisfying the venue statute. This is an issue that the Federal Circuit has not touched since 1985, leaving litigants and courts to review numerous, not always consistent, regional court decisions.
This particular patent case concerns technologies allegedly incorporated into a Cray XC40 supercomputer installed at the University of Texas Austin’s campus (which is not in the Eastern District of Texas). While this case has been pending since 2015, Cray had timely filed a motion to dismiss for improper venue early in the action. READ MORE