TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC

Last updated
TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued March 27, 2017
Decided May 22, 2017
Full case nameTC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC
Docket no. 16-341
Citations581 U.S. ___ ( more )
137 S. Ct. 1514; 197 L. Ed. 2d 816; 122 U.S.P.Q.2d 1553
Case history
PriorIn re TC Heartland LLC, 821 F.3d 1338, 118 U.S.P.Q.2d 1591 (Fed. Cir. 2016); cert. granted, 137 S. Ct. 614 (2016).
Holding
For patent infringement cases, a corporate defendant is considered to "reside" in their state of incorporation.
Court membership
Chief Justice
John Roberts
Associate Justices
Anthony Kennedy  · Clarence Thomas
Ruth Bader Ginsburg  · Stephen Breyer
Samuel Alito  · Sonia Sotomayor
Elena Kagan  · Neil Gorsuch
Case opinion
MajorityThomas, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan
Gorsuch took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
Laws applied
28 U.S.C.   § 1391, § 1400

TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, 581 U.S. ___ (2017), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning the venue in patent infringement lawsuits. [1]

Contents

While a 1957 Supreme Court ruling had determined that patent infringement cases were to be tried in the state within which the defendant was incorporated, subsequent changes to Judiciary and Judicial Procedure implemented by Congress had led courts to rule that infringement cases could be brought anywhere the defendant conducted business considered infringing. This enabled plaintiffs to forum shop for courts favorable to them. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas had become the most popular court for such cases, encouraging many non-practicing entities—so-called "patent trolls"—to use this court to seek litigation and settlements from larger companies.

The Court ruled unanimously in favor of the petitioner, upholding its 1957 decision that patent infringement cases must be heard in the district within which the defendant is incorporated.

Background

United States law under Title 28 of the United States Code (U.S.C.) covering judiciary procedure states that patent infringement lawsuits are to be held in the district court where the defendant (the party charged with patent infringement) "resides", under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). [2] Congress added clarifying language in 1988 to the general statute related to civil cases, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(2), stating that for a corporation, its place of residence is "in any judicial district in which such defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to the civil action in question". [3] Subsequent rulings by federal courts effectively allowed plaintiffs in patent infringement cases to select any district court in whose jurisdiction the defendant did business, e.g., where it sold its products. This determination had been most recently affirmed in a 1990 case VE Holding Corporation v. Johnson Gas Appliance Company in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. [4] Congress amended 28 U.S.C. § 1391 again in 2011, but did not change how courts interpreted the venue system. [5]

This effectively allowed plaintiffs to file suit in nearly any district court of their choosing, arguing that defendants that sold products anywhere in the United States were doing business in that court's jurisdiction, creating a type of forum shopping. This led to a large number of patent infringement cases being filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The Eastern District of Texas was considered to be favorable to plaintiffs: trials were resolved quickly and plaintiffs prevailed in 75% of cases. The speedy resolution of cases was in part due to procedures set up by Judge T. John Ward, appointed to the court in 1999, that kept patent infringement cases to a strict time table. [6] In 2017, the Eastern District of Texas saw the most patent infringement cases of any district court, with one judge overseeing 25% of all such cases in the nation. [4] [7] The United States District Court for the District of Delaware also sees a large number of such cases, partly because of the many businesses incorporated in Delaware. [8]

The Eastern District of Texas attracted a large number of non-practicing entities, derogatorily known as "patent trolls", in addition to other patent infringement complaints. These are individuals or companies that do not actually do business but who have gained ownership of patents which most others would see as low-quality patents that are either overly broad or lack inventiveness. These entities file suit against other companies for patent infringement, typically as means to coerce settlement prior to trial or anticipating a victory in the district court of their choosing. [9] A study found that since 2014, more than 90% of the patent infringement cases heard in the Eastern District of Texas were from such non-practicing entities. [5] [10]

Case background

Kraft Foods sued TC Heartland, another food manufacturer, of patent infringement related to one of its low-calorie sweeteners. Kraft Foods sought legal action in the District of Delaware despite the fact that TC Heartland, an Indiana-based company, had no physical presence in Delaware. TC Heartland sought to change the venue to the Southern District of Indiana, citing the Supreme Court decision in Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Products Corp. 353 U.S. 222–226(1957) that for purposes of patent infringement suits, a corporation "resides" in the state within which it was incorporated. The District Court, and subsequently the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, rejected TC Heartland's argument, stating that the amended language of 28 U.S.C. § 1391 [3] since the decision of Fourco clarified how to determine where a company resides and that past cases at the District and Appeals Court have relied on this interpretation. [4]

Supreme Court

TC Heartland filed a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court in September 2016, specifically addressing whether the interpretation of "resides" in 28 U.S.C. § 1400 can be affected by the amendments made to 28 U.S.C. § 1391; [3] the Court granted certiorari in December 2016. Supporting TC Heartland via amicus briefs included a number of computer, technology, banking, and retail companies such as Apple, eBay, IBM, Microsoft, Intel, and Walmart that sought to eliminate the means that their patents are challenged by non-practicing entities, as well as seventeen states. [5] Amicus briefs in opposition to TC Heartland included a number of pharmaceutical companies, including Allergan, Merck, and Genentech, who stated the ability to decide the venue helped to fend themselves against generic drug manufacturers, and older companies like Ericsson and Whirlpool which have thousands of patents in their portfolio and having the choice of venue making it easy for them to deal with large number of patent infractions in a single location. [5]

Oral arguments were heard before the eight-member court on March 27, 2017. Justice Neil Gorsuch had yet to be appointed at this time and did not participate in the decision. [4] The petitioner, TC Heartland, was represented by James W. Dabney and patent law academic John F. Duffy. William F. Jay argued on behalf of the respondent, Kraft. Observers noted that the justices focused on their previous decision from Fourco and argued the Federal Circuit had been "ignoring our decision", as stated by Justice Elena Kagan. [4] The question of the impact of a decision in favor of TC Heartland was raised, noting that a decision favoring TC Heartland would cause other District Courts, particularly Delaware's, to be loaded with patent infringement cases. [4]

The Court issued its decision on June 26, 2017, ruling unanimously that the definition of "reside" in 28 U.S.C. § 1400 [2] remains as determined by the Court in Fourco to be the state of incorporation for a company. Justice Clarence Thomas, writing the opinion, found that the 2011 updates to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 [3] did not contradict the Fourco decision, nor incorporated elements of the ruling from VE Holdings, and thus, their decision of Fourco still holds. The Court reversed the decision of the Appeals Court and remanded the case back to them. [1] [8]

Impact

A separate patent infringement case, Raytheon Co. v. Cray, Inc., brought to the Eastern District of Texas during the Supreme Court case. Cray argued for a change of venue claiming it did not have a place of business in the district. Chief Judge James Gilstrap for the District Court initially ruled in April 2017 prior to the Supreme Court decision that Raytheon could seek action against Cray in the district. Following the Supreme Court's decision in TC Heartland in May 2017, Cray requested Gilstrap to re-evaluate the case under this ruling. Gilstrap did issue a new ruling, though still denying the change of venue. Gilstrap created a four-point test to evaluate whether a defendant had "regular and established place of business" in the district, and as Cray had a single sales representative living within the district, he denied the motion to change venue. [11] Cray appealed to the Federal Circuit, which was heard after the TC Heartland decision. The Federal Circuit applied the Supreme Court's reasoning to reverse Gilstrap's ruling and allowed Cray's motion to transfer the case to proceed. Coupled with the TC Heartland ruling, this decision was seen to prevent further attempts by plaintiffs to forum shop for a desired court. [12]

The filing of such cases in the Eastern District of Texas, formerly the leader in such suits, dropped after this decision. Meanwhile, the filing of such cases in the District of Delaware increased. [13]

Related Research Articles

Graver Tank & Manufacturing Co. v. Linde Air Products Co., 339 U.S. 605 (1950), was an important United States Supreme Court decision in the area of patent law, establishing the propriety of the doctrine of equivalents, and explaining how and when it was to be used.

Warner-Jenkinson Company, Inc. v. Hilton Davis Chemical Co., 520 U.S. 17 (1997), was a United States Supreme Court decision in the area of patent law, affirming the continued vitality of the doctrine of equivalents while making some important refinements to the doctrine.

In international law and business, patent trolling or patent hoarding is a categorical or pejorative term applied to a person or company that attempts to enforce patent rights against accused infringers far beyond the patent's actual value or contribution to the prior art, often through hardball legal tactics. Patent trolls often do not manufacture products or supply services based upon the patents in question. However, some entities which do not practice their asserted patent may not be considered "patent trolls" when they license their patented technologies on reasonable terms in advance.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas</span> United States federal district court in Texas

The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas is a federal court in the Fifth Circuit.

American Well Works Co. v. Layne & Bowler Co., 241 U.S. 257 (1916), was a United States Supreme Court case governing the scope of federal question jurisdiction.

eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006), is a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States unanimously determined that an injunction should not be automatically issued based on a finding of patent infringement, but also that an injunction should not be denied simply on the basis that the plaintiff does not practice the patented invention. Instead, a federal court must still weigh what the Court described as the four-factor test traditionally used to determine if an injunction should issue.

Lexmark International, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc., is an American legal case involving the computer printer company Lexmark, which had designed an authentication system using a microcontroller so that only authorized toner cartridges could be used. The resulting litigation has resulted in significant decisions affecting United States intellectual property and trademark law.

Fogerty v. Fantasy, Inc., 510 U.S. 517 (1994), was a United States Supreme Court case that addressed the standards governing awards of attorneys' fees in copyright cases. The Copyright Act of 1976 authorizes, but does not require, the court to award attorneys' fees to "the prevailing party" in a copyright action. In Fogerty, the Court held that such attorneys'-fees awards are discretionary, and that the same standards should be applied in the case of a prevailing plaintiff and a prevailing defendant.

T. John Ward is a retired United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. He is best known for the large number of patent infringement cases brought before his court in Marshall, Texas.

In the United States, a valid patent provides its proprietor with the right to exclude others from practicing the invention claimed in that patent. A person who practices that invention without the permission of the patent holder infringes that patent.

Denise Louise Cote is a Senior United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Vringo</span>

Vringo was a technology company that became involved in the worldwide patent wars. The company won a 2012 intellectual property lawsuit against Google, in which a U.S. District Court ordered Google to pay 1.36 percent of U.S. AdWords sales. Analysts estimated Vringo's judgment against Google to be worth over $1 billion. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned the District Court's ruling on appeal in August 2014 in a split 2-1 decision, which Intellectual Asset Magazine called "the most troubling case of 2014." Vringo appealed to the United States Supreme Court. Vringo also pursued worldwide litigation against ZTE Corporation in twelve countries, including the United Kingdom, Germany, Australia, Malaysia, India, Spain, Netherlands, Romania, China, Malaysia, Brazil and the United States. The high profile nature of the intellectual property suits filed by the firm against large corporations known for anti-patent tendencies has led some commentators to refer to the firm as a patent vulture or patent troll.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">J. Rodney Gilstrap</span> American judge

James Rodney Gilstrap is the Chief United States district judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. He is notable for presiding over more than one quarter of all patent infringement cases filed in the nation and is often referred to by various sources as the country's single "busiest patent judge."

Medtronic, Inc. v. Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC, 571 U.S. 191 (2014), is a case of the Supreme Court of the United States that deals with civil procedure, and specifically with the question of the burden of proof required in pursuing declaratory judgments.

Tyler v. Tuel, 10 U.S. 324 (1810), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that an assignee of a geographically limited patent right could not bring an action in the assignee's own name. It was the first published Supreme Court decision on patent law. Like other Supreme Court patent cases prior to Evans v. Eaton, 16 U.S. 454 (1818), however, it did not deal with substantive patent law, but only with the law of patent assignment.

Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576 (2013), was a Supreme Court case that challenged the validity of gene patents in the United States, specifically questioning certain claims in issued patents owned or controlled by Myriad Genetics that cover isolated DNA sequences, methods to diagnose propensity to cancer by looking for mutated DNA sequences, and methods to identify drugs using isolated DNA sequences. Prior to the case, the U.S. Patent Office accepted patents on isolated DNA sequences as a composition of matter. Diagnostic claims were already under question through the Supreme Court's prior holdings in Bilski v. Kappos and Mayo v. Prometheus. Drug screening claims were not seriously questioned prior to this case.

Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., 579 U.S. ___ (2016), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the two-part Seagate test, used to determine when a district court may increase damages for patent infringement, is not consistent with Section 284 of the Patent Act.

Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene's Energy Group, LLC, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that the inter partes review process granted by Congress to the United States Patent and Trademark Office for challenging the validity of patents, rather than a jury trial, is constitutional and did not violate either Article III of the Constitution nor the Seventh Amendment.

Romag Fasteners, Inc. v. Fossil, Inc., 590 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case related to trademark law under the Lanham Act. In the 9–0 decision on judgement, the Court ruled that a plaintiff in a trademark infringement lawsuit is not required to demonstrate that the defendant willfully infringed on their trademark to claim lost profit damages.

Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., 135 S.Ct. 1920 (2015), was a 2015 decision by the United States Supreme Court pertaining to the standard for induced patent infringement. Writing for a 6-2 majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy held that (1) a claim of induced infringement requires a showing that the defendant knew that it is engaging in infringing conduct and (2) a defendant's belief that a patent is invalid is not a defense to a claim of induced infringement. Justice Antonin Scalia dissented from the second point, arguing that, in his view, a good faith belief in a patent's invalidity should constitute a defense to a charge of induced infringement.

References

  1. 1 2 TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC,No. 16-341 , 581 U.S. ___(2017).
  2. 1 2 28 U.S.C.   § 1400.
  3. 1 2 3 4 28 U.S.C.   § 1391.
  4. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Liptak, Adam (March 27, 2017). "Supreme Court Considers Why Patent Trolls Love Texas". The New York Times . Retrieved April 25, 2018.
  5. 1 2 3 4 Parloff, Roger (March 23, 2017). "The Supreme Court could fundamentally change America's broken patent system". Yahoo! . Retrieved April 25, 2018.
  6. ↑ Creswell, Julie (September 24, 2006). "So Small a Town, So Many Patent Suits". The New York Times . Retrieved April 25, 2018.
  7. ↑ "The US Supreme Court just made life much harder for patent trolls". The Verge . May 22, 2017. Retrieved May 22, 2017.
  8. 1 2 Stohr, Greg; Decker, Susan (May 22, 2017). "U.S. Supreme Court Puts New Curbs on Locations of Patent Suits". Bloomberg Businessweek . Retrieved April 25, 2018.
  9. ↑ Nocera, Joe (May 25, 2017). "The Town That Trolls Built". Bloomberg Businessweek . Retrieved April 25, 2018.
  10. ↑ Love, Brian; Yoon, James (January 3, 2017). "Predictably Expensive: A Critical Look at Patent Litigation in the Eastern District of Texas". Stanford Technology Law Review. 20 (1): 1–37. doi:10.2139/ssrn.2835799. SSRN   2835799.
  11. ↑ Mullin, Joe (July 30, 2017). "Will East Texas be able to keep patent cases despite the Supreme Court?". Ars Technica . Retrieved April 25, 2018.
  12. ↑ Mullin, Joe (September 21, 2017). "Appeals court: East Texas can't keep patent case because of one local salesman". Ars Technica . Retrieved April 25, 2018.
  13. ↑ Patent lawsuits drop 21 percent in the Eastern District of Texas as SCOTUS ruling brings new era, ABA Journal, July 19, 2017
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.