From our private database of 33,600+ case briefs...
TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC
United States Supreme Court
137 S. Ct. 1514, 122 U.S.P.Q.2d 1553 (2017)
The patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), limited proper venue in a patent-infringement case filed against a domestic corporation to the place where the corporation resided, which was its state of incorporation. Congress never amended the patent venue statute, but in 1988 Congress amended the general venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c). The amendment added that “for purposes of venue under this chapter” a corporate defendant resided in any jurisdiction where the court had personal jurisdiction over the corporation. In 1991 the Federal Circuit found that because the patent venue statute and general venue statute were part of the same chapter, the amended general venue provisions extended to corporate defendants in patent-infringement actions. Congress again amended the general venue statute in 2011 by removing “for purposes of venue under this chapter” and replacing it with “for all venue purposes.” The 2011 amendment also established that the general venue statute provided default venue rules “except as otherwise provided by law. Nothing in the 2011 amendment suggested Congress intended for the amended general venue statute to alter the meaning of the patent venue statute. TC Heartland LLC (Heartland) (defendant) produced drink mixes and was incorporated and headquartered in Indiana. Kraft Foods Group Brands, Inc. (Kraft) (plaintiff) was incorporated in Delaware and sold products in competition with Heartland. Kraft sued Heartland for patent infringement in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Heartland moved to dismiss or transfer the claim, arguing Delaware was an improper venue. The district court denied the motion. Heartland petitioned for a writ of mandamus. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied the petition. Heartland petitioned the United States Supreme Court for a writ of certiorari, which was granted.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Thomas, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 603,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee
Here's why 603,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 33,600 briefs, keyed to 984 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.