Venue and Personal Jurisdiction Updates

The world continues to spin as we await a decision in the TC Holdings mandamus venue action.

  • A group of Senators have introduced the VENUE Act (Venue Equity and Non-Uniformity Elimination Act of 2016). (S.2733).  The Bill would basically limit the venues where patent infringement claims can be brought.  EFF says: Pass the Venue Act
  • In Acorda Therapeutics v. Mylan Pharma (Fed. Cir. 2016), the Federal Circuit found that, by filing an ANDA with the FDA, a Generic manfacturer opens itself to nationwide personal jurisdiction for patent infringement. [Patently-O Discussion]
  • Sitting by designation in a district court case, Federal Circuit Judge Bryson has rejected a defendant’s contention that VE Holdings had been overruled by the 2011 amendments to the patent venue statute. Script Security Solutions, L.L.C. v., LLC, No. 2:15-CV-1030-WCB, 2016 WL 1055827,  (E.D. Tex. Mar. 17, 2016) (Thanks to Robert Matthews for this update).

About Dennis Crouch

Law Professor at the University of Missouri School of Law. Co-director of the Center for Intellectual Property and Entrepreneurship.

7 thoughts on “Venue and Personal Jurisdiction Updates

  1. You have to wonder if some companies will have physical locations in just one or two districts and then pay off the president to appoint judges that will be very favorable to them. Probably something like this is going to happen. The Fed. Cir. is now a bought off court. The PTO has been bought off. Now they want to get the district courts narrowed down so they can select who is on them.

  2. Nitpick: I think it’s better to say that an intervening statute supersedes a court decision rather than overrules it. Overruling is something only a higher court or en banc panel can do.

    What if the superseding statute expires or the legislature repeals it? Did the legislature then reinstate the earlier court decision? No, there was never an overruling in the first place.

    Okay, I’ll stop now.

    1. http

      Until the fiction becomes a fact, robots just won’t have the protection of law that humans do (and anthropomorphication will remain a key word when it comes to discussions on eligibility – 😉 )

Comments are closed.