Supreme Court Hears Oral Argument in TC Heartland v. Kraft Patent Venue Case

Some Supreme Court justices appeared to struggle during oral argument Monday in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods Group Brands over how much they're willing to rewrite existing rules on the venue for patent infringement lawsuits. Heartland Food Products Group asked the top court to review 28 U.S. Code Section 1400(b), which requires a plaintiff to bring a patent infringement suit only in a U.S. District Court where the defendant resides or has an “established place of business.” The tech sector has taken a substantial interest because of the case's potential to restrict movement of patent cases to Texas' Marshall and Tyler-based district court and others perceived as friendly to plaintiffs (see 1701170066). Justice Stephen Breyer directly questioned how concerns about the Marshall/Tyler district court's oversized role in patent law affected the Heartland case, which involved a transfer of a suit from Delaware to Indiana. Chief Justice John Roberts indicated he was in favor of Heartland's argument. The Electronic Frontier Foundation, Public Knowledge and many top tech firms supported Heartland via amicus briefs. ACT|The App Association, BSA|The Software Alliance and the Software & Information Industry Association were among Heartland's tech backers. The sector strongly supported Heartland's petition to the Supreme Court for writ of certiorari (see 1610140042). House Judiciary Committee Chairman Bob Goodlatte, R-Va., said in February he would re-evaluate whether to include language in future patent legislation aimed at revamping rules for placement of patent infringement suits in federal courts depending on the Heartland ruling (see 1702010069). The Supreme Court “has a chance to help rein in decades of misuse of the patent system by taking away a key tool for patent trolls -- venue shopping,” said Computer & Communications Industry Association President Ed Black in a statement. “We hope they use it.”