On May 22, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its much-anticipated decision on patent venue, potentially upending a years-long practice in patent infringement litigation in which defendants could be sued in virtually any jurisdiction.

With many celebrating the decision as a shake-up that may loosen the Eastern District of Texas' grip on patent infringement suits, in-house lawyers are faced with questions around if–and how–patent strategies should change.

At issue in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods Group Brands was whether venue for patent cases is determined solely by the federal patent venue statute—which limits patent infringement suits to venues where a defendant “resides,” or has committed infringement and has a “regular and established place of business”—or if it may be supplemented by the federal general venue statute that allows suits in any location where there is personal jurisdiction.