On May 15, 2018, the Federal Circuit issued its decision in In re BigCommerce, Inc. (available here). In the case, BigCommerce sought a writ of mandamus, challenging the Eastern District of Texas’ orders denying a motion to dismiss and transfer the case for improper venue.
Diem LLC and Express Mobile, Inc. both filed patent-infringement suits against BigCommerce in the Eastern District of Texas. BigCommerce is incorporated in Texas, but has its headquarters in Austin, which is in the Western District of Texas, and has no place of business in the Eastern District. The Federal Circuit decided to address the question of whether venue was proper because “different courts ha[d] come to different conclusions about whether a corporation ‘resides’ under § 1400(b) in every judicial district within its state of incorporation when the state has more than one judicial district.”
The Federal Circuit concluded:
[A] domestic corporation incorporated in a state having multiple judicial districts “resides” for purposes of the patent-specific venue statute, 28 U.S.C. 1400(b), only in the single judicial district within that state where it maintains a principal place of business, or failing that, the judicial district in which its registered office is located[.]
Because Petitioner BigCommerce, Inc. does not “reside” in the Eastern District of Texas, its mandamus petitions were granted.