CAFC says plaintiff bears the burden of proving venue is proper in a patent infringement suit

In re ZTE (USA) Inc., No. 2018-113, 2018 (Fed. Cir. May 14, 2018) (Before Reyna, Linn, and Hughes, J.) (Opinion for the court, Linn, J.)

Defendant ZTE petitioned for a writ of mandamus, forcing the Federal Circuit to consider which party carries the burden of proof in a motion to transfer. The Federal Circuit held that its law governs the burden of persuasion on the propriety of venue under § 1400(b) and the Plaintiff bears this burden.

After the case was filed in the Eastern District of Texas, ZTE filed a motion to transfer the case to the Northern District of Texas under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) and filed a motion to dismiss for improper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1406 and § 1400(b).  The district court ruled that the Eastern District of Texas was a proper venue. Relying on Fifth Circuit law, the district court denied ZTE’s motion to dismiss, finding that ZTE “failed to meet its burden to show that it does not have a regular and established place of business in the District.”  ZTE filed a petition for a writ of mandamus alleging that the district court improperly placed the burden of proof on the defendant.

The Federal Circuit granted the writ and considered (1) whether Federal Circuit or regional circuit law governs the burden of proof for determining the propriety of venue under § 1400(b) and (2) on which party that burden rests.  The Court acknowledged that the Federal Circuit generally defers to regional circuits on procedural law questions “not unique to patent law.”  In this case, however, venue in a patent infringement action necessarily involves § 1400(b).  Accordingly, this is an issue unique to patent law. The Court relied on the patent specific nature of the statute, the fact that the regional circuits had answered the question inconsistently, and that all appeals would end up at the Federal Circuit.  It was appropriate for the Federal Circuit to adopt a uniform national rule to address patent-specific venue.

The Federal Circuit had not previously considered this issue. The Court concluded that the Plaintiff should bear the burden of establishing venue under § 1400(b). Prior to formation of the Federal Circuit, regional circuits uniformly placed the burden to show proper venue in a patent case on plaintiffs.  In addition to this persuasive historical information, the intent of drafting § 1400(b) and other patent-specific venue statutes was to restrict the venues available to bring patent actions.  The Court concluded that the “intentional narrowness supports placing the burden of establishing proper venue on the Plaintiff.”

The Court criticized the lower court’s summary characterization of the relationship between the parties and instructed the district court to, on remand, consider a list of factors relevant to whether or not the “place of business” at issue in this case is “of the defendant.”

Take Away

Plaintiffs bear the burden of proving, under Federal Circuit law, whether venue is proper in a patent infringement suit.

About Troutman Sanders and the Federal Circuit Review

Founded in 1897, Troutman Sanders LLP is an international law firm with more than 650 lawyers practicing in 16 offices located throughout the United States and Asia. Each week, partners Joe Robinson and Bob Schaffer, succinctly summarize the preceding week of Federal Circuit precedential patent opinions. They provide the pertinent facts, issues, and holdings. This Review allows you to keep abreast of the Federal Circuit’s activities – important for everyone concerned with intellectual property. IPWatchdog.com is pleased to publish these summaries each week.

The Author

Robert Schaffer

Robert Schaffer is an intellectual property partner at Troutman Sanders. Bob applies more than 30 years of experience to IP counseling and litigation. His work includes patent procurement, strategic planning and transactional advice, due diligence investigations, district court patent cases, and Federal Circuit appeals. He regularly handles complex and high-profile domestic and international patent portfolios, intellectual property agreements and licensing, IP evaluations for collaborations, mergers, and acquisitions. In disputed court cases Bob’s work includes representing and counseling client in ANDA litigations, complex patent infringement cases and appeals, and multidistrict and international cases. In disputed Patent Office matters his work includes representing and counseling clients in interferences, reexaminations, reissues, post-grant proceedings, and in European Oppositions. For more information and to contact Bob please visit his profile page at the Troutman Sanders website.

Robert Schaffer

Joseph Robinson has over 20 years of experience in all aspects of intellectual property law. He focuses his practice in the pharmaceutical, life sciences, biotechnology, and medical device fields. His practice encompasses litigation, including Hatch-Waxman litigation; licensing; counseling; due diligence; and patent and trademark prosecution. He has served as litigation counsel in a variety of patent and trademark disputes in many different jurisdictions, and has also served as appellate counsel before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Joe also focuses on complex inter partes matters before the U.S Patent and Trademark Office, inventorship disputes, reexaminations and reissues. His experience includes numerous interferences, a particular advantage in new U.S. Patent and Trademark Office post-grant proceedings. He also counsels on patent–related U.S. Food and Drug Administration issues, including citizen petitions, Orange Book listing, and trademark issues. For more information and to contact Joe please visit his profile page at the Troutman Sanders website.

Warning & Disclaimer: The pages, articles and comments on IPWatchdog.com do not constitute legal advice, nor do they create any attorney-client relationship. The articles published express the personal opinion and views of the author and should not be attributed to the author’s employer, clients or the sponsors of IPWatchdog.com. Read more.

Discuss this

There are currently No Comments comments.

Our website uses cookies to provide you with a better experience. Read our privacy policy for more information.Accept and Close