TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Grp. Brands LLC.

• Citation: 197 L.Ed.2d 816,137 S.Ct. 1514
• Decision Date: 22 May 2017
• Docket Number: No. 16–341.,16–341.
• Parties: TC HEARTLAND LLC, petitioner v. KRAFT FOODS GROUP BRANDS LLC.
• Court: United States Supreme Court

137 S.Ct. 1514
197 L.Ed.2d 816

TC HEARTLAND LLC, petitioner
v.
KRAFT FOODS GROUP BRANDS LLC.

No. 16–341.

Supreme Court of the United States

Argued March 27, 2017.
Decided May 22, 2017.

James W. Dabney, New York, NY, for petitioner.

William M. Jay, Washington, DC, for respondent.

John F. Duffy, Richard M. Koehl, Emma L. Baratta, of counsel, James W. Dabney, Hughes Hubbard & Reed LLP, New York, NY, for petitioner.

John D. Luken, Joshua A. Lorentz, Oleg Khariton, Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, Cincinnati, OH, Michael P. Abate, Dinsmore & Shohl LLP, Louisville, KY, William M. Jay, Brian T. Burgess, Goodwin Procter LLP, Washington, DC, for respondent.

Justice THOMAS delivered the opinion of the Court.

The question presented in this case is where proper venue lies for a patent infringement lawsuit brought against a domestic corporation. The patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), provides that "[a]ny civil action for patent infringement may be brought in the judicial district where the defendant resides, or where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business." In

137 S.Ct. 1517

Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Products Corp., 353 U.S. 222, 226, 77 S.Ct. 787, 1 L.Ed.2d 786 (1957), this Court concluded that for purposes of § 1400(b) a domestic corporation "resides" only in its State of incorporation.

In reaching that conclusion, the Court rejected the argument that § 1400(b) incorporates the broader definition of corporate "residence" contained in the general venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c). 353 U.S., at 228, 77 S.Ct. 787. Congress has not amended § 1400(b) since this Court construed it in Fourco, but it has amended § 1391 twice. Section 1391 now provides that, "[e]xcept as otherwise provided by law" and "[f]or all venue purposes," a corporation "shall be deemed to reside, if a defendant, in any judicial district in which such defendant is subject to the court's personal jurisdiction with respect to the civil action in question." §§ 1391(a), (c). The issue in this case is whether that definition supplants the definition announced in Fourco and allows a plaintiff to bring a patent infringement lawsuit against a corporation in any district in which the corporation is subject to personal jurisdiction. We conclude that the amendments to § 1391 did not modify the meaning of § 1400(b) as interpreted by Fourco . We therefore hold that a domestic corporation "resides" only in its State of incorporation for purposes of the patent venue statute.

I

Petitioner, which is organized under Indiana law and headquartered in Indiana, manufactures flavored drink mixes.¹ Respondent, which is organized under Delaware law and has its principal place of business in Illinois, is a competitor in the same market. As relevant here, respondent sued petitioner in the District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging that petitioner's products infringed one of respondent's patents. Although petitioner is not registered to conduct business in Delaware and has no meaningful local presence there, it does ship the allegedly infringing products into the State.

Petitioner moved to dismiss the case or transfer venue to the District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, arguing that venue was improper in Delaware. See 28 U.S.C. § 1406. Citing Fourco 's holding that a corporation resides only in its State of incorporation for patent infringement suits, petitioner argued that it did not "resid[e]" in Delaware under the first clause of § 1400(b). It further argued that it had no "regular and established place of business" in Delaware under the second clause of § 1400(b). Relying on Circuit precedent, the District Court rejected these arguments, 2015 WL 5613160 (D.Del., Sept. 24, 2015), and the Federal Circuit denied a petition for a writ of mandamus, In re TC Heartland LLC, 821 F.3d 1338 (2016). The Federal Circuit concluded that subsequent statutory amendments had effectively amended § 1400(b) as construed in Fourco, with the result that § 1391(c) now supplies the definition of "resides" in § 1400(b). 821 F.3d, at 1341–1343. Under this logic, because the

137 S.Ct. 1518

District of Delaware could exercise personal jurisdiction over petitioner, petitioner resided in Delaware under § 1391(c) and, therefore, under § 1400(b). We granted certiorari, 580 U.S. ––––, 137 S.Ct. 614, 196 L.Ed.2d 490 (2016), and now reverse.

II

A

The history of the relevant statutes provides important context for the issue in this case. The Judiciary Act of 1789 permitted a plaintiff to file suit in a federal district court if the defendant was "an inhabitant" of that district or could be "found" for service of process in that district. Act of Sept. 24, 1789, § 11, 1 Stat. 79. The Act covered patent cases as well as other civil suits. Stonite Products Co. v. Melvin Lloyd Co., 315 U.S. 561, 563, 62 S.Ct. 780, 86 L.Ed. 1026 (1942). In 1887, Congress amended the statute to permit suit only in the district of which the defendant was an inhabitant or, in diversity cases, of which either the plaintiff or defendant was an inhabitant. See Act of Mar. 3, 1887, § 1, 24 Stat. 552; see also Stonite, supra, at 563–564, 62 S.Ct. 780.

This Court's decision in In re Hohorst, 150 U.S. 653, 661–662, 14 S.Ct. 221, 37 L.Ed. 1211 (1893), arguably suggested that the 1887 Act did not apply to patent cases. As a result, while some courts continued to apply the Act to patent cases, others refused to do so and instead permitted plaintiffs to bring suit (in line with the pre–1887 regime) anywhere a defendant could be found for service of process. See Stonite, supra, at 564–565, 62 S.Ct. 780. In 1897, Congress resolved the confusion by enacting a patent specific venue statute. See Act of Mar. 3, 1897, ch. 395, 29 Stat. 695. In so doing, it "placed patent infringement cases in a class by themselves, outside the scope of general venue legislation." Brunette Machine Works, Ltd. v. Kockum Industries, Inc., 406 U.S. 706, 713, 92 S.Ct. 1936, 32 L.Ed.2d 428 (1972). This new statute ( § 1400(b)'s predecessor) permitted suit in the district of which the defendant was an "inhabitant," or a district in which the defendant both maintained a "regular and established place of business" and committed an act of infringement. 29 Stat. 695. At the time, a corporation was understood to "inhabit" only the State in which it was incorporated. Shaw v. Quincy Mining Co., 145 U.S. 444, 449–450, 12 S.Ct. 935, 36 L.Ed. 768 (1892).

The Court addressed the scope of § 1400(b)'s predecessor in Stonite . In that case, the two defendants inhabited different districts within a single State. The plaintiff sought to sue them both in the same district, invoking a then governing general venue statute that, if applicable, permitted it to do so. 315 U.S., at 562–563, 62 S.Ct. 780. This Court rejected the plaintiff's venue choice on the ground that the patent venue statute constituted "the exclusive provision controlling venue in patent infringement proceedings" and thus was not supplemented or modified by the general venue provisions. Id., at 563, 62 S.Ct. 780. In the Court's view, the patent venue statute "was adopted to define the exact jurisdiction of the federal courts in actions to enforce patent rights," a purpose that would be undermined by interpreting it "to dovetail with the general provisions relating to the venue of civil suits." Id., at 565–566, 62 S.Ct. 780. The Court thus held that the patent venue statute "alone...