In re HTC Corp.
Decision Date | 09 May 2018 |
Docket Number | 2018-130 |
Citation | 889 F.3d 1349 |
Parties | IN RE: HTC CORPORATION, Petitioner |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Federal Circuit |
Yar Roman Chaikovsky, Paul Hastings LLP, Palo Alto, CA, for petitioner. Also represented by Philip Ou ; John W. Shaw, Shaw Keller LLP, Wilmington, DE.
Andres Healy, Susman Godfrey LLP, Seattle, WA, for respondents 3G Licensing, S.A., Koninklijke KPN N.V., Orange S.A. Also represented by Alexandra Giselle White, Houston, TX.
Before Prost, Chief Judge, Wallach and Taranto, Circuit Judges.
ON PETITION
ORDER
HTC Corporation petitions for a writ of mandamus directing the United States District Court for the District of Delaware to (a) vacate its December 18, 2017 order denying-in-part HTC Corporation's motion to dismiss for improper venue under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3) ; and (b) dismiss the complaint against HTC Corporation. 3G Licensing, S.A., Orange S.A., and Koninklijke KPN N.V. (collectively, "Respondents") oppose.
In January 2017, Respondents filed their patent infringement suit against HTC Corporation, a Taiwanese corporation with its principal place of business in Taiwan, and its wholly owned U.S. based subsidiary, HTC America, Inc., a Washington corporation with its principal place of business in Seattle, Washington. In June 2017, after Respondents filed their second amended complaint, HTC Corporation and HTC America filed a motion to dismiss for improper venue pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3) or, in the alternative, to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a) or 1406(a).
In its December 18, 2017 order, the district court found that venue was not proper as to HTC America but was proper as to HTC Corporation. App. 1–7. Following the order, Respondents voluntarily dismissed their suit against HTC America without prejudice. HTC Corporation now files this mandamus petition seeking dismissal for improper venue.1
A writ of mandamus is a drastic remedy available only in extraordinary circumstances. Such a writ may issue only where the following conditions are met: (1) the petitioner must have no other adequate means to attain the relief desired; (2) the petitioner must demonstrate a "clear and indisputable" right to the issuance of the writ; and (3) "even if the first two prerequisites have been met, the issuing court, in the exercise of its discretion, must be satisfied that the writ is appropriate under the circumstances." Cheney v. U.S. Dist. Court for D.C. , 542 U.S. 367, 380–81, 124 S.Ct. 2576, 159 L.Ed.2d 459 (2004).
A party seeking mandamus must demonstrate that it has "no other adequate means to attain the relief [it] desires." Cheney , 542 U.S. at 380, 124 S.Ct. 2576 (quoting Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Court for N. Dist. of Cal. , 426 U.S. 394, 403, 96 S.Ct. 2119, 48 L.Ed.2d 725 (1976) ). This requirement is "designed to ensure that the writ will not be used as a substitute for the regular appeals process." Id. at 380–81, 124 S.Ct. 2576.
The mandamus petition in this case is based on the denial of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(3) or, alternatively, to transfer under § 1406(a), for improper venue.2 While this court has granted mandamus petitions based on the denial of motions to transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) with some frequency,3 we have done so less frequently with respect to petitions based on the denial of motions under § 1406(a) asserting improper venue. See In re Cray Inc. , 871 F.3d 1355, 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2017) ; In re Micron Tech., Inc. , 875 F.3d 1091, 1102 (Fed. Cir. 2017). This divergence, in part, relates to the first requirement for granting mandamus—that the mandamus petitioner have no other adequate means to attain the relief desired.4
Unlike a defendant challenging the denial of a § 1404(a) transfer motion,5 a defendant aggrieved by the denial of an improper-venue motion has an adequate remedy on appeal from a final judgment. Specifically, if after judgment venue is determined to have been improper, and the improper-venue objection was not waived, the appellants "will be entitled to assert it on appeal and, if the objection is sustained, obtain from [the appeals] court an order vacating the judgment ... and directing the remand of the action to the [appropriate venue]." Gulf Research & Dev. Co. v. Leahy , 193 F.2d 302, 304–05 (3d Cir. 1951) ; see id. ; Chi., R.I. & P.R. Co. v. Igoe , 212 F.2d 378, 381 (7th Cir. 1954) (); cf. Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach , 523 U.S. 26, 41–43, 118 S.Ct. 956, 140 L.Ed.2d 62 (1998) ( ). Given the availability of adequate relief on appeal, mandamus review of improper-venue decisions is generally inappropriate. See Bankers Life & Cas. Co. v. Holland , 346 U.S. 379, 379–84, 74 S.Ct. 145, 98 L.Ed. 106 (1953) ( ); Comfort Equip. Co v. Steckler , 212 F.2d 371, 374–75 (7th Cir. 1954) ( ); Gulf Research , 193 F.2d at 304–05 ( ).
Although Petitioner argues that it should "not be forced to litigate this case in an improper venue through a final judgment before it can contest venue via appeal," Pet'r's Br. 6, the Supreme Court rejected this same argument in Bankers Life , explaining that "the extraordinary writs cannot be used as substitutes for appeals, even though hardship may result from delay and perhaps unnecessary trial." Bankers Life , 346 U.S. at 383, 74 S.Ct. 145 (citations omitted); see also Comfort Equip. , 212 F.2d at 375 (). Decisions of this court and the Third Circuit reflect that reasoning. See In re BP Lubricants USA Inc. , 637 F.3d 1307, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2011) ; Gulf Research , 193 F.2d at 304–05 ().
To be sure, while an appeal will usually provide an adequate remedy for a defendant challenging the denial of an improper-venue motion, there may be circumstances in which it is inadequate. We need not articulate such circumstances here, as Petitioner's only argument is that it should be able to avoid the inconvenience of litigation by having this issue decided at the outset of its case. This is insufficient, and there is no other indication that Petitioner cannot be afforded adequate relief on appeal.
A party seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus must also demonstrate that the right to the writ is clear and indisputable. Cheney , 542 U.S. at 381, 124 S.Ct. 2576 (quoting Kerr , 426 U.S. at 403, 96 S.Ct. 2119 ). Petitioner has failed to meet this burden.
The district court in this case relied on Brunette Machine Works, Ltd. v. Kockum Industries, Inc. , 406 U.S. 706, 706, 92 S.Ct. 1936, 32 L.Ed.2d 428 (1972), and § 1391(c)(3) to hold that HTC Corporation, as a foreign corporation, is subject to suit in any judicial district. App. 3. Petitioner argues that the district court erred in three ways: (1) by applying § 1391(c)(3) in a patent case; (2) by relying on Brunette , which interpreted a prior version of § 1391; and (3) by not applying the patent venue statute, § 1400(b). We see no error in the district court's analysis. As explained below, Petitioner's arguments are fully addressed by reaffirming the "long-established rule that suits against aliens are wholly outside the operation of all the federal venue laws, general and special." Brunette , 406 U.S. at 714, 92 S.Ct. 1936.
The issue of whether the venue laws protect alien defendants is colored by a long statutory and judicial history, including two cases in which the Supreme Court directly addressed this same question. Id. at 707, 92 S.Ct. 1936 ; In re Hohorst , 150 U.S. 653, 659, 14 S.Ct. 221, 37 L.Ed. 1211 (1893).
As explained in Brunette , the origins of the venue laws extend back to the Judiciary Act of 1789. Brunette , 406 U.S. at 708, 92 S.Ct. 1936. The original venue restriction stated:
[N]o civil suit shall be brought before courts against an inhabitant of the United States , by any original process in any other district than that whereof he is an inhabitant, or in which he shall be found at the time of serving the writ....
Act of Sept. 24, 1789, ch. XX, § 11, 1 Stat. 79 (1789) (emphasis added). Because this...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Tube-Mac Indus., Inc. v. Campbell
...Venue is proper over the foreign patentee Defendants in any district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(3). See In re HTC Corp., 889 F.3d 1349, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ("venue laws (as opposed to requirements of personal jurisdiction) do not restrict the location of suits against alien def......
-
Slyce Acquisition Inc. v. Syte - Visual Conception Ltd.
...1400(b). When a foreign corporation is sued for patent infringement, 28 U.S.C. § 1391 applies and not 28 U.S.C. § 1400. In re HTC , 889 F.3d 1349, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2018). A party may move to dismiss a claim for improper venue pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3). Once a defen......
-
Tube-Mac Indus., Inc. v. Campbell, 2:19-cv-01192-RJC
...Venue is proper over the foreign patentee Defendants in any district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(3). See In re HTC Corp., 889 F.3d 1349, 1356 (Fed. Cir. 2018) ("venue laws (as opposed to requirements of personal jurisdiction) do not restrict the location of suits against alien def......
-
The Portland Mint v. The United States
...... court's attention, whether raised by a party or not, and. even if the parties affirmatively urge the court to exercise. jurisdiction over the case." (citing Foster v. Chatman , 136 S.Ct. 1737, 1745 (2016)); Int'l. Elec. Tech. Corp. v. Hughes Aircraft Co. , 476 F.3d 1329,. 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2007); Haddad v. United States , 152. Fed.Cl. 1, 16 (2021); Fanelli v. United States , 146. Fed.Cl. 462, 466 (2020). The Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. §. 1491, grants jurisdiction to this court as follows:. . . ......
-
Finding Favorable Fora For Foreign Firms
...The Impact of TC Heartland, docket NavIgator (Nov. 29, 2022, 3:21 PM), https://brochure.docketnavigator.com/tc-heartland/. 6. In re HTC , 889 F.3d 1349, 1354-57 (Fed. Cir. 2018); see 28 U.S.C. '1391(c)(3) (emphasis 7. See TC Heartland, 137 Ct. at 1515-18. 8. Nidec Motor Corp. v. Broad Ocean......
-
Introduction to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board
...a multidistrict state, the defendant is deemed to reside in the district where its registered offi ce is located. In re HTC Corp. , 889 F.3d 1349, 126 U.S.P.Q.2d 1618 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The Federal Circuit denied a mandamus petition seeking review of the denial of HTC’s motion to dismiss for......
-
Strategic Considerations for IP Litigators and Corporate Counsel Prosecuting and Defending IP Disputes: Securing Coverage Despite Limited Intellectual Property Coverage
...a multidistrict state, the defendant is deemed to reside in the district where its registered offi ce is located. In re HTC Corp. , 889 F.3d 1349, 126 U.S.P.Q.2d 1618 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The Federal Circuit denied a mandamus petition seeking review of the denial of HTC’s motion to dismiss for......
-
Decisions in Brief
...a multidistrict state, the defendant is deemed to reside in the district where its registered offi ce is located. In re HTC Corp. , 889 F.3d 1349, 126 U.S.P.Q.2d 1618 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The Federal Circuit denied a mandamus petition seeking review of the denial of HTC’s motion to dismiss for......
-
EXTRAORDINARY WRIT OR ORDINARY REMEDY? MANDAMUS AT THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT.
...or, at a minimum, be one in which such post-judgment review would be highly inefficient (such as venue, see, e.g., In re HTC Corp., 889 F.3d 1349, 1352 n.5 (Fed. Cir. (50.) Kerr v. U.S. Dist. Ct., 426 U.S. 394, 403 (1976). (51.) Id. (52.) See Gugliuzza, supra note 13, at 361, 361 n.126. (53......