## Facts

- Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC held patents covering liquid water-enhancing products.
- TC Heartland LLC, an Indiana limited liability company organized under Indiana law and headquartered in Indiana, manufactured and sold competing liquid beverage enhancer products.
- Kraft sued Heartland for patent infringement in the District of Delaware.
- Heartland shipped some accused products into Delaware under two contracts but was not incorporated in Delaware, was not registered to do business there, had no local presence, and did not solicit business there.
- Heartland moved to dismiss or transfer for improper venue, arguing that under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) it did not “reside” in Delaware and lacked a “regular and established place of business” there.
- The district court found specific personal jurisdiction based on shipments into Delaware and denied the venue challenge under Federal Circuit precedent applying 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)’s residence definition to § 1400(b).
- The Federal Circuit denied mandamus and maintained that amendments to § 1391 superseded prior Supreme Court precedent limiting patent venue.

## Issues

1. Whether, for domestic corporations, “resides” in the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), means only the state of incorporation.
2. Whether the general venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c), supplies the definition of corporate residence for patent venue under § 1400(b) after Congress’s amendments to § 1391.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed and remanded.
- The Court held that, as applied to domestic corporations, “resides” in § 1400(b) refers only to the corporation’s state of incorporation.
- The Court rejected the Federal Circuit’s rule that patent venue is proper wherever a corporate defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction via § 1391(c).
- The Court reaffirmed that § 1400(b), as previously construed, remains the controlling and exclusive statute governing venue in patent infringement actions.
- Justice Thomas authored the opinion; Justice Gorsuch did not participate.

## Legal Principles

- 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) is the exclusive venue provision for patent infringement actions.
- For domestic corporations, “resides” in § 1400(b) means only the state of incorporation.
- Amendments to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 do not alter § 1400(b)’s meaning absent a clear congressional directive; § 1391’s “except as otherwise provided by law” clause preserves special venue statutes.
- Patent venue against a domestic corporate defendant lies only in (1) the state of incorporation, or (2) a district where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court narrowed patent venue by restoring the rule that a domestic corporation “resides” only in its state of incorporation for purposes of § 1400(b), rejecting reliance on § 1391(c)’s broader residence definition and limiting patent suits to venues authorized by the patent-specific statute.


TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Grp. Brands LLC, 137 S. Ct. 1514 (2017)