Few concepts are more steeped in Pennsylvania law than the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Memorialized in Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1006, the doctrine provides defendants a "necessary counterbalance to a plaintiff's choice of forum to insure fairness and practicality." See Bratic v. Rubendall, 99 A.3d 1, 6 (Pa. 2014) (cleaned up). Historically, to establish forum non conveniens, a defendant had to show the plaintiff's chosen forum is either oppressive or vexatious without any particular form of proof. Through a series of recent decisions, however, the Pennsylvania Superior Court has sown uncertainty in the once-settled area of the law, subjecting some litigants to new, more rigid requirements and others to the traditional, flexible standard that has existed under Pennsylvania law for over a quarter-century. With each new decision, the intermediate appellate court reveals another piece of the puzzle. But as a fragmented image takes shape, litigants and trial courts are looking to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court to solve the puzzle.