Monday, January 29, 2018

In Determining Venue, Domestic Corporations Reside Only in Judicial District of Principal Place of Business

The court granted defendant's motion to transfer plaintiff's patent infringement action from the Central District to the Northern District of California for improper venue and rejected plaintiff's argument that 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) permitted venue in any district of defendant's state of incorporation. "⁠[Plaintiff] argues that venue is proper because the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), permits an action to be filed in any district within the state of incorporation. Because [defendant] is a California corporation, it claims, venue is proper in any of the four districts within the state. [Defendant] disagrees and argues that venue is proper only within the judicial district in which a defendant has its principal place of business. This motion therefore presents a single, discrete question: In which judicial districts do domestic corporations 'reside' in multi-district states under the patent venue statute? . . . [I]n the context of 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), a corporate defendant 'resides' only in the state of its incorporation and, within that state, only in the judicial district in which it maintains its principal place of business. Applying that standard to the facts of the instant case, Defendant is a resident solely of the Northern District of California."

Realtime Data LLC v. Nexenta Systems, Inc., 2-17-cv-07690 (CACD January 23, 2018, Order) (Otero, USDJ)

No comments: