28 Usc 1400bEdit
28 U.S.C. 1400b is the cornerstone of patent infringement litigation in federal courts, defining where a patent holder may sue for violations of patent rights and setting the balance between deterrence of infringement and fair access to the courts. The provision sits at the intersection of intellectual property protection and civil procedure, shaping where disputes over patented inventions can be resolved and, by extension, how quickly innovators can defend or monetize their ideas. The statute, its interpretation, and its practical effects have long been a point of contention among practitioners, judges, and policymakers who want to reconcile robust patent rights with predictable, efficient litigation.
From a practical standpoint, 28 U.S.C. § 1400b states that “Any civil action for infringement of a patent may be brought in the judicial district where the defendant resides, or where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has an established place of business.” This wording ties venue to both the defendant’s residence and to the nexus of the alleged infringement with a physical footprint of the defendant in a particular district. The language has been read and re-read as courts have wrestled with what counts as “resides” for individuals and for corporations, and what constitutes a “regular and established place of business.” The statute sits alongside general venue rules in 28 U.S.C. § 1391, but its patent-specific text creates a distinct framework that courts and litigants must navigate in every infringement dispute. patent infringement venue (law)
History and text
Origin and purpose. The modern patent venue regime grew out of concerns that patent enforcement should track the location where alleged infringers operate, while also preserving a forum where patent owners can obtain timely relief for misappropriation of protected inventions. The text of 1400b reflects a Congressional decision to limit where patent cases may be filed, rather than to create a nationwide forum for all patent disputes. patent Congress
Core language. The operative sentence provides two alternative bases for venue: (1) where the defendant resides, and (2) where the defendant “has committed acts of infringement and has an established place of business.” The phrase “regular and established place of business” has proven central to how many courts analyze where a defendant maintains meaningful operations. venue (law)
Supreme Court clarification. The pivotal change in recent decades came from the Supreme Court in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, which held that, for domestic corporations, venue is proper primarily in districts where the defendant is incorporated or has a regular and established place of business. That decision narrowed earlier, broader interpretations of “resides” and emphasized predictable, economics-based venue decisions. The ruling reinforced the idea that patent rights are enforceable in a way that concentrates litigation in predictable hubs, rather than dispersing cases to any court with a remote connection to the infringing activity. TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC patent venue (law)
Interaction with other venue principles. The rule interacts with general civil procedure rules about personal jurisdiction and with the practical geography of manufacturing, development, and distribution networks. Critics note that this can place disproportionate weight on where a defendant is organized or maintains a fixed office, rather than where the harm from infringement actually centers. Supporters argue that it curtails forum shopping and reduces the risk that patent disputes are litigated in distant or specialized venues simply because they attract large dockets. federal judiciary venue (law)
Jurisdiction and venue
How venue is established. In practice, a plaintiff seeking patent relief must assess where the defendant resides (often interpreted through the defendant’s incorporation or residence) or where the defendant has an established business presence tied to the infringement. The presence of a regular and established place of business is often grounded in evidence of employees, facilities, or operations tied to the accused activity. Courts weigh these factors, applying the TC Heartland framework to determine whether a district is a proper venue. regular and established place of business Eastern District of Texas
Notable battlegrounds. After TC Heartland, districts with historically heavy patent dockets—such as the Eastern District of Texas—saw shifts in filing patterns, as plaintiffs and defendants recalibrated expectations about venue. Other venues with significant patent activity include Delaware and certain California districts, where corporate headquarters, distribution, or R&D centers can anchor a defendant’s established presence. Delaware Northern District of California
Practical implications for litigants. The venue rules in § 1400b affect strategy around where to sue, how to assemble evidence of infringement, and how to predict court management of complex infringement cases. For many victims of patent infringement, the question is not whether to sue, but where to sue so as to maximize leverage without incurring unnecessary costs. patent venue (law)
Impact and debates
Economic and strategic dimensions. Supporters of tight venue rules argue that they reduce forum shopping, lower litigation costs by focusing disputes in predictable hubs, and protect investment in innovation by limiting opportunistic suits in distant courts. They contend that the costs and uncertainty of sprawling patent litigation undermine the ability of firms to secure equitable relief and to plan long-term R&D investments. patent economy
Critics’ concerns. Critics contend that overly narrow venue rules can disadvantage patent owners, particularly individual inventors and smaller entities, by making it harder to pursue legitimate claims in a convenient forum. They fear the rules tilt leverage toward large corporations with established litigation footprints, potentially slowing legitimate enforcement in local markets. Critics also warn that strict venue constraints can complicate timely adjudication of infringement disputes that genuinely arise in a defendant’s local operations. venue (law)
The “trolls” and the policy debate. A subset of the debate centers on non-practicing entities and how venue rules affect their ability to press claims in favorable courts. Proponents of tighter venue control argue that the changes deter abusive filings and accelerate resolution for all parties, while detractors warn that sensationalized labels for certain claimants may obscure legitimate entrepreneurial activity and the protection of intellectual property. The discussion often touches on broader patent reform questions, including how to balance rights with the costs and efficiencies of litigation. patent reform non-practicing entity
Wider reform considerations. In the wake of courtroom decisions and legislative proposals, there is ongoing discussion about whether Congress should modify § 1400b to address evolving business models, including digital and internet-based infringing activity, and whether there should be protective measures to ensure access to venues that reflect where harm occurs. Congress patent venue (law)
Reforms and proposals
Potential directions. Proposals range from retaining the current framework but clarifying standards for “regular and established place of business,” to broader reforms aimed at restoring a more flexible venue system for patent cases. Some advocate for targeted adjustments to ensure smaller entities can access convenient, economically viable forums for enforcement. regular and established place of business patent reform
Balancing act in practice. Any change to § 1400b would need to respect the judgment for predictable litigation ecosystems while preserving incentives for innovation and the enforcement of legitimate rights. The debate is often framed around who bears litigation costs, how quickly disputes are resolved, and how to prevent disproportionately costly lawsuits from deterring investment in new technologies. patent venue (law)