May 23, 2018
LES Insights
When suing multiple defendants for patent infringement and venue is challenged, a patent owner must establish that all of the defendants have a sufficient connection with that venue. In particular, the patent owner cannot rely solely on the contacts of one defendant in the venue and impute them to another defendant, even if the defendants are related and collaborate with each other, unless they are so related and integrated such that one company exercises "an unusually high degree of control" or "the other company’s corporate existence is simply a formality" so that it is appropriate to pierce the corporate veil between the companies and treat them as effectively the same entity.
Defendants Lowe’s and LG Sourcing argued that a Wisconsin court was an improper venue for a patent infringement case filed against them by Unity Opto, and the court transferred the case to another district.
In reviewing the connections Lowe’s and LG Sourcing had with Wisconsin, defendants conceded Lowe’s had a place of business in the Wisconsin district, but denied LG Sourcing did. Instead, they argued the case should be transferred to the Western District of North Carolina, where venue was proper as to both defendants.
The Court relied on the framework established by the Federal Circuit in In re Cray Inc. to determine whether LG Sourcing had a regular and established place of business in the Western District of Wisconsin, namely,
Unity Opto did not dispute that LG Sourcing did not own, lease, or maintain any facilities in the district, or have any employees who resided there. Instead, Unity Opto argued that the retail store for Lowe’s should qualify as LG Sourcing’s place of business because of the relationship between the two parties. To do so, Unity Opto relied on several facts, including,
Even assuming the allegations were true, the Court found they only show defendants are subsidiaries of the same parent company and they collaborate with each other, which was not sufficient to treat them as interchangeable.
For purposes of establishing venue, the contacts of one corporation cannot be attributed to another, even if the two have a parent and subsidiary relationship, unless the parent exercises "an unusually high degree of control" or "the subsidiary’s corporate existence is simply a formality" so that it is appropriate to pierce the corporate veil.
Finding that Unity Opto ignored those principles and did not even attempt to show piercing the corporate veil was appropriate, the Court held Unity Opto failed to meet its burden of showing venue for its patent infringement lawsuit against Lowe’s and LG Sourcing was proper in the Western District of Wisconsin. The Court also denied Unity Opto’s request for discovery on venue, explaining that discovery is not appropriate unless a party first makes a prima facie showing that venue is proper.
The Court also explained that an alternative ground for transfer existed as well. Unity Opto was a Taiwanese company, both defendants were in North Carolina, and the only connection to Wisconsin was the sale of the accused products. Further, the only reason Unity Opto identified for litigating in Wisconsin was that cases there were generally resolved faster than in the Western District of North Carolina. Unpersuaded, the Court found that the relative speed of the courts would not be a sufficient justification for keeping the case in the Western District of Wisconsin.
To determine whether an infringer can be sued for patent infringement in a particular district, courts will analyze the corporate status and relationship between defendants as well as the contacts of each defendant in the particular district. Contacts of only one defendant with the forum may not be sufficient to establish venue as to related defendants unless a party can show that the relationship between the companies is such that piercing the corporate veil is proper.
Further Information
The Unity Opto opinion can be found here.
Copyright © Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. This article is for informational purposes, is not intended to constitute legal advice, and may be considered advertising under applicable state laws. This article is only the opinion of the authors and is not attributable to Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, or the firm’s clients.
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
10th Annual Georgia Asian Pacific American Bar Association Gala
May 29, 2024
Atlanta
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.