{"id":2307,"date":"2018-11-14T14:10:26","date_gmt":"2018-11-14T19:10:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=2307"},"modified":"2018-12-09T14:34:15","modified_gmt":"2018-12-09T19:34:15","slug":"tc-heartland-micron-free-oath-from-the-eastern-district-of-new-york","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/?p=2307","title":{"rendered":"TC Heartland\/Micron Free Oath from the Eastern District of New York"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

In\u00a0In re: Oath Holdings Inc.<\/a>, [2018-157] (November 14, 2018), the Federal Circuit granted Oath Holdings petition for mandamus, and remanded the case with the district court with the instruction that\u00a0the district court either dismiss or transfer the case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In March 2016, Oath was sued for patent infringement in the United States District Court for the Eastern\u00a0District of New York.\u00a0 While Oath conducts business\u00a0in the State of New York, it is incorporated in Delaware,\u00a0and it does not have \u201ca regular and established place of\u00a0business\u201d in the Eastern District.\u00a0 Within 21 days of the Supreme\u00a0Court\u2019s decision in TC Heartland, although it had answered the Complaint, Oath filed a motion\u00a0pursuant to Rule 12(b)(3), to dismiss for improper venue.\u00a0 The district court found that Oath had waived the right to challenge venue.\u00a0 Oath petitioned for mandamus, but because the Federal Circuit in Micron said\u00a0TC Heartland effected a relevant change in\u00a0the law, such that failure to present\u00a0the venue objection earlier did not come within\u00a0the waiver rule, the Federal Circuit instructed Oath to raise the matter with the district court.\u00a0 Oath did, but the district court did not change its ruling, so Oath filed a second petition for mandamus.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Federal Circuit said that given its on point\u00a0ruling in Micron<\/em>, its order on Oath\u2019s first mandamus\u00a0petition based directly on Micron<\/em>, and the district
court\u2019s reasoning in nevertheless standing by its initial\u00a0conclusion, we think that this case involves the narrow and\u00a0exceptional circumstance in which mandamus is important\u00a0for proper judicial administration.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Federal Circuit rejected respondent’s argument that Micron does not apply because\u00a0it arose under First Circuit law, while the present case\u00a0arises under Second Circuit law, concluding that issues of\u00a0waiver or forfeiture of patent-venue rights under\u00a0\u00a71400(b) and \u00a71406(a) are governed by Federal Circuit law.\u00a0 The Federal Circuit went on to observe that there was no Second Circuit precedent that would suggest a different result than in Micron<\/em>, and thus Micron<\/em> answers the entire question\u00a0of waiver under Rule 12(g)(2) and (h)(1) for purposes of\u00a0this case: there was no such waiver.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Federal Circuit concluded that Oath had not waived or forfeited its
venue rights. Because it was undisputed that venue was\u00a0improper in the Eastern District of New York, the case\u00a0may not remain there. The Federal Circuit ordered the district court to\u00a0either dismiss the case or transfer the case to a\u00a0\u201cdistrict or division in which it could have been brought.\u201d<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In\u00a0In re: Oath Holdings Inc., [2018-157] (November 14, 2018), the Federal Circuit granted Oath Holdings petition for mandamus, and remanded the case with the district court with the instruction that\u00a0the district court either dismiss or transfer the case. In March … 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-2307","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\/2307","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=2307"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2307\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2310,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2307\/revisions\/2310"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=2307"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=2307"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/patents.harnessip.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=2307"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}