## Facts

- VE Holding Corporation owned several U.S. patents relating to pellet-burning technology.
- VE filed two patent infringement suits in the Northern District of California: one against California Pellet Mill Company and Johnson Gas Appliance Company, and a second against Johnson alone.
- VE alleged direct and contributory infringement and inducement to infringe.
- Johnson, an Iowa corporation, moved to dismiss both actions for improper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), arguing it neither “resided” in California nor maintained a regular and established place of business there.
- The district court dismissed both cases, applying the then-traditional rule that, for § 1400(b), a corporation “resides” only in its state of incorporation.
- VE appealed, arguing that the 1988 amendment to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c) (defining corporate residence for venue “under this chapter” as any district where the corporation is subject to personal jurisdiction) changed the meaning of “resides” in § 1400(b).
- The Federal Circuit consolidated the appeals and addressed the effect of the 1988 amendment and its effective date on the two separately filed complaints.

## Issues

1. Whether the 1988 amendment to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c) redefined “resides” in 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) to include any district where a corporate defendant is subject to personal jurisdiction.
2. Whether the amended definition applied to suits filed before the amendment’s effective date.

## Decision

- The Federal Circuit held that the 1988 amendment to § 1391(c) changed the meaning of “resides” in § 1400(b) for corporate defendants.
- The court ruled that, after the amendment’s effective date, a corporation “resides” for patent venue purposes in any judicial district where it is subject to personal jurisdiction when the action is commenced.
- The court affirmed the dismissal of the earlier-filed action because it was commenced before the amendment took effect.
- The court reversed the dismissal of the later-filed action and remanded because it was commenced after the amendment took effect and venue was proper under the amended definition.

## Legal Principles

- For corporate defendants, “resides” in § 1400(b) is defined by § 1391(c) when § 1391(c) provides a definition applicable “[f]or purposes of venue under this chapter,” and § 1400(b) is within that chapter.
- Prior interpretations treating § 1400(b) as unaffected by general venue provisions do not bar Congress from later amending the general venue statute to supply a chapter-wide definition that reaches § 1400(b).
- Statutory amendments governing venue are generally applied based on the filing date of the complaint; absent a clear directive, an amended venue definition does not retroactively cure venue defects in actions filed before the amendment’s effective date.

## Conclusion

The Federal Circuit concluded that the 1988 amendment to § 1391(c) expanded corporate patent venue under § 1400(b) by redefining corporate “residence” to track personal jurisdiction for suits filed after the amendment became effective, while leaving earlier-filed cases governed by the pre-amendment rule.


VE Holding Corp. v. Johnson Gas Appliance Co., 917 F.2d 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1990)