TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC is the Supreme Court decision that pulled patent venue back from the Federal Circuit's expansive reading of 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). For two and a half decades, plaintiffs could sue any corporation in any district where the defendant did business — which gave rise to the Eastern District of Texas as the dominant patent forum. TC Heartland held that for a domestic corporation, "resides" means only the state of incorporation. The decision overnight rebalanced where patent cases get filed.
Decided May 22, 2017, 581 U.S. 258.
Background
The patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), allows a patent infringement suit to be filed in any judicial district "where the defendant resides, or where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business."
In 1957, the Supreme Court held in Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Products Corp. that a corporation "resides" only in its state of incorporation — restricting patent venue tightly.
In 1990, the Federal Circuit in VE Holding Corp. v. Johnson Gas Appliance Co. read § 1400(b) together with the general venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c), and concluded that "resides" had been broadened — a corporation now resided wherever it was subject to personal jurisdiction. That made nearly every domestic corporation subject to patent venue in nearly every district. Plaintiffs gravitated to plaintiff-friendly venues, and the Eastern District of Texas dominated. By some estimates, 40% of all U.S. patent cases were filed there in the years before TC Heartland.
TC Heartland, an Indiana company, was sued by Kraft in the District of Delaware over flavored water-drink mixes. TC Heartland moved to dismiss for improper venue, citing Fourco. The district court denied the motion under VE Holding. The Federal Circuit denied mandamus. TC Heartland appealed to the Supreme Court.
The holding
The Supreme Court unanimously reversed (8-0; Justice Gorsuch did not participate). Justice Thomas wrote the opinion:
We conclude that the amendments to § 1391 did not modify the meaning of § 1400(b) as interpreted by Fourco. We therefore hold that a domestic corporation "resides" only in its State of incorporation for purposes of the patent venue statute.
The Court read § 1400(b) and § 1391(c) as separate statutes, each governing different venue questions. Because § 1391(c) speaks to "general" venue and § 1400(b) is the "exclusive" patent venue provision, Fourco's narrower reading of "resides" was preserved.
What changed overnight
Patent venue mathematics inverted in days:
- Eastern District of Texas. Pre-TC Heartland, the dominant patent forum nationwide. Post-TC Heartland, only defendants actually incorporated in Texas (rare) or with a "regular and established place of business" in E.D. Tex. (also rare for most companies) could be sued there.
- District of Delaware. Most U.S. corporations are incorporated in Delaware. TC Heartland made D. Del. the new dominant patent forum almost immediately. Patent dockets exploded.
- Western District of Texas. TC Heartland didn't anticipate the rise of Judge Alan Albright, who took the bench in W.D. Tex. in 2018 and aggressively recruited patent cases. By 2020, Albright's docket rivaled Delaware's. Subsequent W.D. Tex. case-assignment rules and Federal Circuit mandamus practice curtailed his caseload, but W.D. Tex. remains a major venue.
Plaintiffs and their counsel adapted. NPEs that had built infrastructure around Marshall, Texas, started filing in Wilmington, Delaware. Some NPE structures aimed for venue in defendants' home states. Others embraced "regular and established place of business" theories to keep pulling defendants into preferred districts. (See how patent trolls operate for context on the venue side of the troll economy.)
What it means for defendants
For a defendant on the receiving end of a patent suit, venue is among the first things to check:
- Where are you incorporated? A Delaware-incorporated defendant can be sued for patent infringement in D. Del. on the "resides" prong, full stop. A non-Delaware defendant cannot be sued in D. Del. on that prong unless it also has a § 1400(b) place of business there.
- Where do you have a "regular and established place of business"? In re Cray, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2017), the post-TC Heartland venue case, narrowed this prong to actual physical places where the defendant employs people doing its work. A storage locker, a one-employee remote worker, or a sublease in an unrelated office is not enough. A real branch office is.
- Was the suit filed in the right place? A motion to dismiss for improper venue under Rule 12(b)(3) — or to transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) — is the standard play when the suit is in a less defendant-favorable venue. A favorable transfer can change the trajectory of a case.
For NPE-style assertions where the troll sues a defendant outside both incorporation state and any plausible place of business, TC Heartland and Cray together can win the venue fight quickly. Combine with § 285 fee shifting when the venue choice itself was abusive — the same disregard for venue rules can support an "exceptional case" finding under Octane Fitness.
Aftermath and current dynamics
Patent venue analytics now look very different from the pre-TC Heartland world:
- D. Del. routinely tops 1,000 patent cases per year. Long judicial tenures and predictable rulings make it a respected forum for both sides.
- E.D. Tex. still hears patent cases but at much lower volumes than its 2010s peak.
- W.D. Tex. rose, then partially fell. A 2022 standing order in W.D. Tex. that randomized Albright cases across the district's other judges dampened the rocket-docket effect.
The structural lesson: changing where a case can be filed is one of the most powerful reforms in patent litigation. TC Heartland did more to change the practical economics of patent assertion than any procedural reform of the post-AIA era.
Bottom line
TC Heartland is the single most important venue case in modern patent law. It dismantled the Federal Circuit's expansive "resides" reading and restored § 1400(b) to its 1957 Fourco meaning. For defendants, it made venue a real defense — not a foregone conclusion. For plaintiffs, it ended the Eastern District of Texas hegemony and shifted the gravity of patent litigation to Delaware. Any patent litigator's first venue check today starts with TC Heartland.
Read the opinion: TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, 581 U.S. 258 (2017).
This article is for general education and is not legal advice.