直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
  • Articles & Books
    • Ad Law Buzz Blog
    • At the PTAB Blog
    • European IP Blog
    • Federal Circuit IP Blog
    • INCONTESTABLE® Blog
    • Prosecution First Blog
  • Events & Webinars
  • IP Updates
  • Podcasts
    • AI + Finnegan
    • AI + Copyright
    • AI + Patent
    • AI + Privacy
    • AI + Trade Secrets
    • AI + Trademark
  • Unified Patent Court (UPC) Hub

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Google’s Servers Hosted by Third Parties Do Not Establish Patent Venue

March 12, 2020

Authored and Edited by Victor H. Feng; Samhitha M. Medatia; Elizabeth D. Ferrill

In In re Google LLC, No. 2019-126 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 13, 2020), the Federal Circuit held that venue was improper in the Eastern District of Texas because Google’s servers did not qualify as a “regular and established place of business.”

Google contracted with internet service providers (“ISPs”) to host Google’s servers within the district. The contracts stated that Google would provide the server equipment, and the ISPs would install and maintain the servers and provide network access. Super Interconnect Technologies LLC (“SIT”) sued Google for patent infringement in the district. The district court denied Google’s motion to dismiss for improper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). Google petitioned for mandamus seeking to reverse the venue decision.

The Federal Circuit reversed. It held that a “regular and established place of business” requires the regular, physical presence of an employee or other agent of the defendant conducting the defendant’s business at the alleged “place of business,” and that the ISPs did not qualify.  The court found that the functions of the ISPs, including installing and maintaining the servers, did not make the ISPs agents of Google. As a result, Google did not have a regular and established place of business to make the venue proper. Judge Wallach concurred, but questioned whether Google’s end users in certain circumstances could become Google’s agents by sharing data with Google in furtherance of Google’s business.

Tags

patent venue

Related Practices

Appeals, Issues, and Legal Strategy

Federal Circuit and Supreme Court Appeals

Contacts

Elizabeth D. Ferrill
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4445
Email

Copyright © 2020 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. 


DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information. 

Related Insights

Conference

Patent Litigation Europe 2027

January 18-20, 2027

Amsterdam

Panel Discussion

2026 Advanced Patent Law Institute

December 3-4, 2026

Stanford

Conference

IPBC Asia 2026

November 17-19, 2026

Tokyo

Conference

IAM Live: Navigating the UPC 2026

November 4, 2026

Paris

Conference

Life Sciences Patent Network North America Fall 2026

November 2-3, 2026

San Francisco

Conference

2026 ANA Masters of Advertising Law Conference

November 2-4, 2026

Huntington Beach

Conference

4th Global Patent Litigation FORUM

October 29, 2026

Munich

Conference

2026 EDTX Bench Bar Conference

October 28-30, 2026

Fort Worth

Lecture

2026 Donald R. Dunner Endowed Lecture

October 27, 2026

Washington, DC

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP