Supreme court had tighten norms regarding venue for patent infringement purpose. In the TC Heartland LLC vs. Kraft food Groups Brands LLC, the supreme court had shifted the balance easily away from the Eastern District of Texas. for many US firms it is a era of Delaware. Restricting the residential requirement, section 28 U.S.C.$1400 (b) holds only to a defendants state of incorporation for patent infringement venue.


further as narrated by Justice Thomas, the courts prior decision in Fourco Glass Co. v Transmirra Product Corp;
“Argued: April 2, 1957 Decided: April 29, 1957”

1. Venue in patent infringement actions is governed exclusively by 28 U.S.C. 1400 (b), which provides that any such action 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”; and 28 U.S.C. 1391 (c) has no application to such actions. Stonite Products Co. v. Melvin Lloyd Co., 315 U.S. 561 . Pp. 222-229.
2. A patent infringement action may not be brought against a corporation in a judicial district in which it is not shown to have committed any of the alleged acts of infringement and which is outside the State where it was incorporated, though it has a regularly established place of business in such judicial district. Pp. 222-229.
3. The 1948 revision and recodification of the Judicial Code, 62 Stat. 869, made no substantive change in 48 of the Judicial Code when it recodified it as 28 U.S.C. 1400 (b). Pp. 225-228.
28 U.S. Code &1391 – Venue generally
Except as otherwise provided by law—
this section shall govern the venue of all civil actions brought in district courts of the United States; and
the proper venue for a civil action shall be determined without regard to whether the action is local or transitory in nature.
A civil action may be brought in,
(1)a judicial district in which any defendant resides, if all defendants are residents of the State in which the district is located;
a judicial district in which a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject of the action is situated; or
(3) if there is no district in which an action may otherwise be brought as provided in this section, any judicial district in which any defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with

“Summarizing the argument he wanted to state that the , domestic corporation ‘resides’ in its state of corporation and rejecting the notion of it could be filed anywhere, thereby tightening the patent norms. ”

Earlier compilation stated:

As Supreme court laws remains unabating, the federal circuit created a major diversion in the VE Holding Corp. v. Johnson Gas appliance Co., 917F 2d, 1574(1990):
This is a case of first impression. It comes to us in the form of consolidated appeals from two judgments of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (“District Court”), No. C89-0209 SC (May 19, 1989) (“VE Holding I “–Appeal 90-1270) and No. C89-3856 SC (Feb. 9, 1990) (“VE Holding II “–Appeal 90-1274), dismissing plaintiff/appellant’s action against appellee for improper venue. We hold that Congress by its 1988 amendment of 28 U.S.C. Sec. 1391(c) meant what it said; the meaning of the term ‘resides’ in Sec. 1400(b) has changed. We therefore reverse the judgment in VE Holding II (Appeal 90-1274) and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Venue, which connotes locality, serves the purpose of protecting a defendant from the inconvenience of having to defend an action in a trial court that is either remote from the defendant’s residence or from the place where the acts underlying the controversy occurred. 1A(2) J. Moore, W. Taggart, A. Vestal, J. Wicker & B. Ringle, Moore’s Federal Practice p 0.340 (2d ed. 1990). The venue statutes achieve this by limiting a plaintiff’s choice of forum to only certain courts from among all those which might otherwise acquire personal jurisdiction over the defendant.
“Summarising above, what earlier was known, was that the venue is proper in any court having personal jurisdiction over the defendant. That expansive change allowed for the rise of patent focussed venue such as Eastern District of Texas.”