Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Intellectual Property Law Blogs -> Two-Seventy-One Patent Blog

Intellectual Property Law

: Two-Seventy-One Patent Blog

Study Proposes Modifications to Patent Venue

By Peter Zura

Sidney Rosenzweig, a visiting fellow at the Progress and Freedom Foundation, published a paper yesterday addressing issues related to patent reform and the venue statutes. Specifically, Rosenzweig identifies numerous deficiencies in the House and Senate bills. Essentially, he argues that, while recent congressional proposals are meant to prevent plaintiff forum-shopping, the proposals are "vaguely written and contain substantial gaps that will ensure that some cases cannot be brought in any venue. The effect of the enactment of either bill will be to cause a tidal wave of venue-related disputes to drown the federal courts."

As a result, Rosenzweig proposes the following revision to 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) to address the only concrete problem identified by Congress, "namely the lax standard for venue against corporate defendants":

Notwithstanding subsection 1391(c) of this title, any civil action for patent infringement may be brought against a corporation only in a judicial district--

(1) where the defendant has its principal place of business or where the defendant is incorporated;

(2) where the defendant has committed a substantial portion of the acts of infringement and has a regular and established physical facility that it controls;

(3) where any defendant has committed a substantial portion of the acts of infringement and has a regular and established physical facility that it controls, if there is no other district in which the action may be brought under subsections (1) or (2); or

(4) where any defendant has its principal place of business, where any defendant is incorporated, where any defendant may be found, or where any defendant has committed acts of infringement, if there is no other district in which the action may be brought under subsections (1), (2) or (3).

Read/download the entire (20 page) report here.

Full post as published by Two-Seventy-One Patent Blog on February 19, 2009 (boomark / email).