June 5, 2022
Managing Intellectual Property
On June 26, 2017, the ruling in TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods established that the venue for patent cases had to be where defendants were incorporated or had regular and established places of business. The ruling adjusted the number of case filings in certain districts due to higher numbers of established places of business. After five years of the change in venue rule, some patent practitioners argue that the patent venue law is established. Finnegan partner James Barney noted that companies may have more nuance in whether a franchise constitutes an established place of business.
James explained that the analysis in the case of franchises would depend on the details of the franchise agreement. Different contact agreements could lead to different conclusions on venue. He added that courts will need to address venue-related disputes on a case-by-case basis, stating, “As each of these fact patterns gets resolved, that will provide more clarity.”
Read “Patent Venue Still Unsettled Five Years After TC Heartland″
Award/Ranking
Managing IP Americas Awards 2024: Finnegan Shortlisted for Nine Awards, Including Firm of the Year
March 12, 2024
Commentary
February 29, 2024
Press Release
Finnegan Secures Another Patent Victory for BMW Group in the District of Delaware
February 27, 2024
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.