TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods — Supreme Court Restores Strict Patent Venue Rules

Background

Kraft Foods sued TC Heartland — an Indiana company — for patent infringement in the District of Delaware. TC Heartland has no facilities in Delaware and is incorporated in Indiana, but it ships its products into Delaware. Kraft argued venue was proper in Delaware because a 1988 amendment to the general venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391, expanded the definition of corporate residence for all federal cases.

The Federal Circuit agreed with Kraft, relying on its own 1990 precedent. TC Heartland asked the Supreme Court to overturn this interpretation and restore the narrower venue rule from the Court’s 1957 decision in Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Products Corp.

The Court’s Holding

Justice Thomas, writing for a unanimous Court, reversed the Federal Circuit and held that 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) is the sole and exclusive provision governing venue in patent cases. That statute allows suit where the defendant (1) resides, or (2) has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business. For corporations, “resides” means only the state of incorporation — not every state where the company sells products or does business.

The Court found that § 1391’s general venue rules do not apply to § 1400(b), which is a special, exclusive venue provision for patent cases. The 1988 amendments did not silently override the Supreme Court’s prior interpretation of “resides” in the patent context.

Key Takeaways

• Patent infringement suits against corporations may only be filed where the defendant is incorporated or where it has committed infringement and has a regular, established physical place of business.
• The Eastern District of Texas lost its status as a near-universal patent forum; many defendants have no presence there.
• Delaware, where many corporations are incorporated, became a major beneficiary of the ruling.
• Companies filing patent suits must now do careful homework on where a target defendant is incorporated and physically operates.

Why It Matters

Before TC Heartland, patent cases flooded into the Eastern District of Texas — a single judicial district that at its peak handled over 40% of all U.S. patent cases, chosen for its fast dockets and patent-friendly reputation. The TC Heartland decision upended that dynamic overnight, forcing a wholesale redistribution of patent cases to defendants’ home jurisdictions.

The ruling is broadly viewed as reducing “forum shopping” — filing suit in whichever court is most favorable to the plaintiff regardless of any genuine connection to the case. For defendants, particularly operating companies with clear state-of-incorporation identities, it provides meaningful protection against being dragged into distant courts.