November 22, 2017
Authored and Edited by Ruohan Li; Lillian M. Robinson; Elizabeth D. Ferrill
In In re: Micron Tech., Inc., No. 2017-138 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 15, 2017), the Federal Circuit vacated the district court’s order denying Micron’s venue challenge and remanded the case for further consideration. The court held that the Supreme Court’s TC Heartland decision nullified a venue-challenge waiver prior to TC Heartland.
In 2016, Harvard filed a patent-infringement case against Micron. Micron moved to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), but did not object to venue under Rule 12(b)(3). After the Supreme Court’s TC Heartland decision in 2017, Micron moved to dismiss or to transfer the case for improper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1406(a). The district court denied the motion, holding that under Rule 12(h)(1)(A), Micron had waived its venue objection by omitting this available defense from an initial motion to dismiss.
On writ of mandamus, the Federal Circuit sided with Micron, concluding that TC Heartland changed the relevant controlling law. The court reasoned that, before TC Heartland, controlling Federal Circuit law barred the district court from adopting the venue objection now raised by Micron. Micron’s venue defense based on TC Heartland’s interpretation of the venue statute was not “available” at the time of Micron’s initial motion to dismiss, thus making any waiver under Rule 12(h)(1)(A) inapplicable. The court remanded the case for the district court to consider other grounds for venue objection forfeiture, such as untimeliness or inadequate preservation.
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.
At the PTAB Blog
Discretion All the Way Down: USPTO Uses a Discretionary IPR Denial to Justify a
§ 325(d) EPR Denial
May 28, 2026
At the PTAB Blog
IPR and PGR Statistics for Final Written Decisions Issued in March and April 2026
May 26, 2026
At the PTAB Blog
May 20, 2026
Webinar
Changes at the PTAB from Settled Expectations to Real Parties in Interest to Director Involvement
May 18, 2026
Webinar
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.