Federal Circuit Backs Existing Rule Allowing Suits Against Foreign Defendants in Any District
The Federal Circuit has declined to revisit the US Supreme Court’s precedent allowing suits to be brought against foreign defendants in any district. In its 1972 decision in Brunette Machine Works v. Kockum Industries, the Supreme Court held that a prior version of the statute providing that rule (presently 35 USC § 1391(c)(3)) governed suits against foreign patent defendants rather than the patent-specific venue statute, under the long-standing principle that foreign defendants fall outside all federal venue laws. That rule had been challenged by HTC in a February 21 petition for writ of mandamus, after a district court found in a suit brought by 3G Licensing S.A. and Koninklijke KPN that venue was proper as to HTC’s primary Taiwanese entity but not as to an American subsidiary. In a May 9 ruling denying that petition in In re: HTC, the Federal Circuit reaffirmed Brunette and rejected the argument that TC Heartland and 2011 amendments to the general venue statute precluded that case’s interpretation of the foreign venue statute (2018-0130).
Subscription Required
This content requires a subscription to view
- Over 7,000 news articles covering new patent cases, key policy decisions, and USPTO assignments
- Advanced custom alerts for campaigns and entities
- Proprietary litigation timelines
- Full access to Federal Circuit, PTAB, and ITC dockets
- Judge, venue, and law firm analytics
Related News
Details
Campaigns
Litigations
- Koninklijke Kpn N.V. v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC. et al
- Koninklijke Kpn N.V. v. Samsung Electronic America, Inc., et al
- Koninklijke Kpn N.V. v. Samsung Electronics Co LTD et al
- 3G Licensing, S.A. et al v. Blackberry Limited et al
- 3G Licensing, S.A. v. Lenovo Holding Co., Inc. et al
- Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Sierra Wireless, Inc., et al
- Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. TCL Corporation, et al
- 3G Licensing, S.A. et al v. HTC Corporation
- Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Kyocera Corporation
- Koninklijke KPN N.V. v. Oppo Electronics Corp.