TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC
2017 United States Supreme Court case / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, 581 U.S. ___ (2017), was a United States Supreme Court case concerning the venue in patent infringement lawsuits.[1]
TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC | |
---|---|
Argued March 27, 2017 Decided May 22, 2017 | |
Full case name | TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC |
Docket no. | 16-341 |
Citations | 581 U.S. ___ (more) 137 S. Ct. 1514; 197 L. Ed. 2d 816; 122 U.S.P.Q.2d 1553 |
Case history | |
Prior | In re TC Heartland LLC, 821 F.3d 1338, 118 U.S.P.Q.2d 1591 (Fed. Cir. 2016); cert. granted, 137 S. Ct. 614 (2016). |
Holding | |
For patent infringement cases, a corporate defendant is considered to "reside" in their state of incorporation. | |
Court membership | |
| |
Case opinion | |
Majority | Thomas, joined by Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan |
Gorsuch took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
Laws applied | |
28 U.S.C. § 1391, § 1400 |
While a 1957 Supreme Court ruling had determined that patent infringement cases were to be tried in the state within which the defendant was incorporated, subsequent changes to Judiciary and Judicial Procedure implemented by Congress had led courts to rule that infringement cases could be brought anywhere the defendant conducted business considered infringing. This enabled plaintiffs to forum shop for courts favorable to them. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas had become the most popular court for such cases, encouraging many non-practicing entities—so-called "patent trolls"—to use this court to seek litigation and settlements from larger companies.
The Court ruled unanimously in favor of the petitioner, upholding its 1957 decision that patent infringement cases must be heard in the district within which the defendant is incorporated.