{"id":1815,"date":"2017-11-15T20:12:06","date_gmt":"2017-11-16T01:12:06","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=1815"},"modified":"2017-11-24T21:06:47","modified_gmt":"2017-11-25T02:06:47","slug":"perhaps-out-of-guilt-the-federal-circuit-grants-mandamus-to-permit-venue-challenge","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=1815","title":{"rendered":"Perhaps Out of Guilt, the Federal Circuit Grants Mandamus to Permit Venue Challenge"},"content":{"rendered":"

In In re Micron Technology, Inc.<\/a>, [2017-138] (November 15, 2017), the Federal Circuit granted Microns’ petition for Mandamus to permit it to challenge venue of the patent infringement case brought against it.\u00a0 \u00a0The District of Massachusetts refused to allow the challenge, finding that the Supreme Court’s decision\u00a0was not a change of law that would make
\nRule 12(g)(2) and hence Rule 12(h)(1)(A) inapplicable.<\/p>\n

The Federal Circuit concluded as a matter of law that a venue defense was not \u201cavailable\u201d to\u00a0Micron in August 2016, because\u00a0until the Supreme Court decided TC Heartland because,\u00a0before then, it would have been improper, given controlling\u00a0precedent, for the district court to dismiss or to
\ntransfer for lack of venue.\u00a0 The Federal Circuit said that where controlling law precluded the district\u00a0court, at the time of the motion, from adopting a defense\u00a0or objection and on that basis granting the motion, it is\u00a0natural to say, in this context, that the defense or objection\u00a0was not \u201cavailable\u201d to the movant.\u00a0 The Federal Circuit added that when a defense or objection is
\nfutile in the sense that the law bars the district court from\u00a0adopting it to dismiss, to require the assertion of the\u00a0defense or objection in an initial motion to dismiss, on\u00a0pain of waiver, would generally be to require the waste of\u00a0resources, contrary to Rule 1.<\/p>\n

The Federal Circuit\u00a0said that this case is one in which controlling precedent precluded\u00a0the district court from adopting an objection to
\nvenue before the Supreme Court decided TC Heartland\u2014specifically, from adopting such an objection in August\u00a02016, when Micron made its first Rule 12 motion. On the\u00a0patent-specific issue of the proper interpretation of 28\u00a0U.S.C. \u00a7 1400(b), the district court was bound by Federal Circuit\u00a0 precedent.\u00a0\u00a0Circuit-court precedent\u00a0is binding on district courts notwithstanding the\u00a0mere possibility that the Supreme Court might come to
\ndisapprove that precedent.<\/p>\n

The Federal Circuit reasoned that TC Heartland<\/em> was a change in law because the Supreme Court had never construed \u00a71400(b) under the particular versions of \u00a71391,\u00a0\u00a0That change of law, severing \u00a71400(b) from\u00a0\u00a71391(c), made available to Micron in this case the objection
\nthat it does not come within the meaning of \u201cresides\u201d\u00a0for purposes of venue under \u00a71400(b).<\/p>\n

The Federal Circuit thus granted the petition for mandamus vacating the Order\u00a0denying Micron\u2019s Rule 12(b)(3) motion, and remanding the case\u00a0for further proceedings consistent with its\u00a0Order.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In In re Micron Technology, Inc., [2017-138] (November 15, 2017), the Federal Circuit granted Microns’ petition for Mandamus to permit it to challenge venue of the patent infringement case brought against it.\u00a0 \u00a0The District of Massachusetts refused to allow the … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[24],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1815","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-venue"],"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1815","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1815"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1815\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1816,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1815\/revisions\/1816"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1815"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1815"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1815"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}