Supreme Court Highlights Importance of Statute-Specific Venue Rules -
The Supreme Court upended nearly thirty years of practice when it ruled, in the TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC U.S. , 137 S.Ct. 1514 (May 22, 2017), that actions for patent infringement may only be brought in the location the alleged infringement occurred or in the alleged infringer’s state of incorporation. The decision alters the approach patent plaintiffs and courts must use to determine what venue is appropriate for each case. The decision also shines a spotlight on one of the more confusing aspects of federal civil procedure: the question of residence for the purpose of venue.
Venue and Residence: A Historical Overview -
Unlike the doctrines of personal and subject-matter jurisdiction, which concern the authority of a court to adjudicate a dispute, the rules of venue dictate which courts among the 94 federal judicial districts are available as a forum for the litigants. Since 1789, Congress has provided specific criteria for identifying the appropriate court or courts—but those criteria have changed over time.
Please see full publication below for more information.
