Authored by Grantland Drutchas
In In re: Cray, Inc, No. 2017-129, the CAFC issued a writ of mandamus vacating Judge Gilstrap’s decision involving venue under 28 U.S.C. §1400(b) in Raytheon Co. v. Cray Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1554 (E.D. Texas). That earlier decision raised concerns over whether the Supreme Court’s venue holding in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, 137 S. Ct. 1514 (2017), would be given full effect. Judge Gilstrap had applied a broad 4-factor test for finding whether a defendant such as Cray had a “regular and established place of business” in the Eastern District of Texas under §1400(b). Judge Gilstrap’s test had attracted significant attention, and posited the Eastern District of Texas against most other district courts in applying § 1400(b).
Judge Lourie, writing for a unanimous panel in a 20-page decision, held that the statute had three distinct requirements for a regular and established place of business, which were not met by the test applied by Judge Gilstrap:
Decided September 21, 2017
The opinion can be found at http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Cray_2017-129_9.21.17_ORDER.pdf.
MBHB attorneys Grant Drutchas and Aaron Gin, Ph.D. will be presenting on this and other venue selection issues in their upcoming MBHB webinar, The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: Patent Litigation Forum Selection in the Wake of TC Heartland, set for Tuesday, October 17, 2017, from 10:00-11:15 a.m. CT. Information and registration is available via the MBHB website at http://www.mbhb.com/events/xpqEventDetail.aspx?xpST=EventDetail&event=230.
Grantland G. Drutchas, an MBHB partner, has more than 20 years of experience in the practice of intellectual property law, with a particular emphasis on litigation, licensing, and client counseling. email@example.com
© 2017 McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP
snippets is a trademark of McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP. All rights reserved. The information contained in this newsletter reflects the understanding and opinions of the author(s) and is provided to you for informational purposes only. It is not intended to and does not represent legal advice. MBHB LLP does not intend to create an attorney–client relationship by providing this information to you. The information in this publication is not a substitute for obtaining legal advice from an attorney licensed in your particular state. snippets may be considered attorney advertising in some states.