TC HEARTLAND TRANSFERS TROLLS
Intellectual Property Section
Continued from page 44
defendant’s state of incorporation.
The most popular district for transfer
motions is the Eastern District
of Texas, where defendants have
sought to transfer out of the
infamous patent litigation capital.
Some district judges in the Eastern
District of Texas have wrestled
with methods of keeping cases in
front of them. One method for
doing so has been to focus on the
second prong of the patent venue
statute, which provides that venue
is appropriate in the district where
the defendant infringed the
plaintiff ’s patent if the defendant
has a regular and established place
of business there.
One judge, Judge Gilstrap from
the Eastern District of Texas,
1<2;?3?.>;??8697??,??4>5=?0=+/<-
fashioned a new four-part test for
determining whether a defendant
has a “regular and established
place of business” within a district.
Under the four-part test, the court
considers: (1) the defendant’s
physical presence in the district,
(2) the defendant’s representations
regarding its presence in the
district, (3) the benefits the
defendant has received from
business in the district, and
(4) whether there were any targeted
interactions with the district.
Raytheon Co. v. Cray, Inc., No.
2:15-cv-01554-JRG, 2017 WL
2813896, at *10 - 14 (E.D. Tex.
June 29, 2017). None of the factors
alone are dispositive; rather, the
inquiry should focus on “whether
a domestic business enterprise
seeks to materially further its
commercial goals within a specific
district through ways and means
that are ongoing and continuous.”
Id. at 14.
Although the Supreme Court
definitively decided the meaning
of “resides,” the ultimate test
regarding proper venue in patent
cases is still being litigated. It
remains to be seen whether district
court