October 3, 2017
Authored and Edited by Jon T. Self, Ph.D.; Sydney R. Kestle; Elizabeth D. Ferrill
In In re Cray, Inc., No. 2017-129, the Federal Circuit granted a petition for a writ of mandamus, directing the Eastern District of Texas to transfer a case to the Western District of Washington because the defendant lacked “a regular and established place of business” in Texas.
By statute, venue in a patent case is proper either where the defendant resides or where the defendant infringes and has a regular and established place of business. Arguing that patent owner Raytheon had sued it in an improper venue, Cray, Inc. sought a transfer. The district court denied the transfer, finding Cray had a regular and established place of business in the district because Cray had allowed an employee to work remotely from his home within the district.
Cray petitioned for a writ of mandamus. Considering the issue, the Federal Circuit identified three requirements for a defendant to have a regular and established place of business: (1) there must be a physical place in the district; (2) it must be a regular and established place of business; and (3) it must be the place of the defendant.
Applying these factors to Cray, the Federal Circuit found that Cray did not have a regular and established place of business in the Eastern District of Texas because its employee’s home was not a place of the defendant. In making its decision, the Federal Circuit noted that Cray did not own, lease, or rent its employee’s home; had not required its employee to maintain a location in the district; and had not selected the home’s location or stored inventory or conducted demonstrations there. Because the three factors were not satisfied, the Federal Circuit ordered a change in venue.
Copyright © 2017 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.
Conference
2024 Licensing Executives Society USA – Canada Annual Meeting
October 20-23, 2024
New Orleans
Conference
4th Annual Passport to Proficiency on the Essentials of Hatch-Waxman and BPCIA
October 8-24, 2024
Virtual
Seminar
Intellectual Property in the Age of AI: What Do You Own and How Do You Balance Risks?
September 25, 2024
Boston
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.