Today, the Supreme Court issued two decisions, described below, of interest to the business community.

Patent Act—Venue

TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Food Brands Group LLC, No. 16-341

The patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), permits a patent infringement action to be brought "in the judicial district where the defendant resides."  Although the Supreme Court held in 1957 that § 1400(b) was exclusive and that a corporate defendant "resides," for these purposes, only where it is incorporated, the Federal Circuit held in 1990 that amendments to the general venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391, had changed the venue calculus in patent cases.  The Federal Circuit's approach provided plaintiffs with far greater flexibility in selecting a venue, which resulted in a disproportionate share of patent infringement actions being filed in judicial districts (like the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas) believed to favor the interests of patent holders.  Today, in an 8-0 decision authored by Justice Thomas, the Supreme Court rejected the Federal Circuit's approach and held that a domestic corporation can be sued for patent infringement only in its state of incorporation.  This decision is likely to shift a substantial amount of patent litigation from Texas to federal courts in states like Delaware and California.

Hague Service Convention—International Service of Process

Water Splash, Inc. v. Menon, No. 16-254

The Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters—to which the United States is a party—addresses the service of judicial documents among member states.  Generally speaking, when the Hague Service Convention applies, certain methods of service are approved and inconsistent methods of service are preempted.  Today, the Supreme Court held that the Convention does not prohibit service by mail.  That question had previously divided the lower courts.  The Supreme Court's conclusion was unanimous (except for Justice Gorusch, who did not participate), and was announced through an opinion authored by Justice Alito.

Please visit us at

Visit us at

Mayer Brown is a global legal services provider comprising legal practices that are separate entities (the "Mayer Brown Practices"). The Mayer Brown Practices are: Mayer Brown LLP and Mayer Brown Europe – Brussels LLP, both limited liability partnerships established in Illinois USA; Mayer Brown International LLP, a limited liability partnership incorporated in England and Wales (authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority and registered in England and Wales number OC 303359); Mayer Brown, a SELAS established in France; Mayer Brown JSM, a Hong Kong partnership and its associated entities in Asia; and Tauil & Chequer Advogados, a Brazilian law partnership with which Mayer Brown is associated. "Mayer Brown" and the Mayer Brown logo are the trademarks of the Mayer Brown Practices in their respective jurisdictions.

© Copyright 2017. The Mayer Brown Practices. All rights reserved.

This Mayer Brown article provides information and comments on legal issues and developments of interest. The foregoing is not a comprehensive treatment of the subject matter covered and is not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should seek specific legal advice before taking any action with respect to the matters discussed herein.