We report on four recent appellate decisions involving plaintiffs’ access to federal courts, holding that: (i) the broad corporate-residence standard for venue continues to apply to patent cases; (ii) there is personal jurisdiction over an ANDA filer in every district in which it foresees selling its generic drug; (iii) owners of foreign trademarks may bring unfair competition claims against U.S. owners of the same marks; and (iv) dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds is improper where the foreign forum is not shown to provide redress for U.S. intellectual property law disputes.
Patent: General Venue Statute
Venue in patent cases is an important issue for practitioners and for the courts. For over 25 years, venue has been proper in a patent case in any district court that has personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Thus, many cases are filed in districts where the defendant is not headquartered or incorporated, but where it sells the product in dispute. Many commentators have suggested that this is why a substantial percentage of patent cases in the United States are filed in the Eastern District of Texas, where some “perceive[]” the procedures and track record “ to be friendly to plaintiffs.” Ryan Davis, “Fed. Circ.’s Pass On Patent Venue Sends Fight To Congress,” Law360 (April 29, 2016), http://www.law360.com/articles/790800/fed-circ-s-pass-on-patent-venue-sends-fight-to- congress.
