Patent venue - product-by-product inquiry not required

Last week, Judge Albright clarified that when assessing whether venue is proper under the patent venue statute, the Court will not require that venue be proved as to each accused product. “This Court has not previously, and will not now, adopt a product-by-product inquiry for venue.” See Kirsch Research and Development LLC v. BlueLinx Corporation, 6-20-cv-00316 (W.D.T.X. Jul. 19, 2021). A key factor in the Court’s decision not to dismiss count II of the complaint appeared to be that the plaintiff alleged some act of infringement, even if not every action needed to practice the method claims, took place in the district. A few months earlier, in another case involving multiple patents, the Court found venue to be proper where there were allegations of method claim steps performed in the district, but that venue was improper where the plaintiff relied on a “pendent venue” to assert its infringement claim. See Quartz Auto Techs. LLC v. Lyft, Inc., 1:20-cv-00719 (WDTX Mar. 29, 2021). “[T]he Supreme Court makes clear in TC Heartland that § 1400(b) "is the sole and exclusive provision controlling venue in patent infringement actions" and is not to be supplemented by provisions of the general venue statute. 137 S. Ct. at 1519. Thus, the doctrine cannot be used to circumvent the statute…” Id. RETURN TO INSIGHTS