## Facts

- Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, a patent holder, sued TC Heartland LLC for infringement of three patents in the District of Delaware.
- TC Heartland was organized under Indiana law and headquartered in Indiana.
- TC Heartland was not registered to do business in Delaware and had no office, employees, bank accounts, supply contracts, or direct sales solicitation there.
- TC Heartland nevertheless shipped the accused products into Delaware through contracts with at least two national customers, with Delaware shipments constituting a little over 2% of accused-product sales (tens of thousands of dollars).
- TC Heartland moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and to dismiss or transfer for improper venue; the district court denied the motion.
- TC Heartland petitioned the Federal Circuit for a writ of mandamus directing dismissal or transfer to the Southern District of Indiana.

## Issues

1. Whether TC Heartland had a clear and indisputable right to mandamus relief compelling dismissal or transfer because venue in Delaware was improper under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b).
2. Whether TC Heartland had a clear and indisputable right to mandamus relief compelling dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction in Delaware.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit denied the petition for a writ of mandamus in full.
- On venue, the court held TC Heartland failed to show a clear and indisputable right to relief because controlling circuit precedent treated § 1391(c)’s corporate-residence definition as applicable to § 1400(b).
- On personal jurisdiction, the court held TC Heartland likewise failed to show a clear and indisputable right to relief given its shipments of accused products into Delaware and the governing minimum-contacts framework.

## Legal Principles

- Mandamus is an extraordinary remedy available only in exceptional circumstances; the petitioner must show, among other elements, a clear and indisputable right to the writ.
- For corporate defendants, Federal Circuit precedent at the time applied 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)’s definition of corporate “residence” to patent venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b).
- Statutory amendments to § 1391(c) in 2011 did not, under then-controlling precedent, clearly displace that venue interpretation.
- Purposeful shipment of allegedly infringing products into a forum state can supply an arguable basis for specific personal jurisdiction, defeating mandamus absent a clear contrary entitlement.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit denied extraordinary mandamus relief, holding that TC Heartland’s venue and personal-jurisdiction objections to litigating in Delaware were not clearly correct under controlling law and the record of shipments into the forum.


In re TC Heartland LLC, 821 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2016)