美國聯邦最高法院限制專利訴訟審判地：TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Brands LLC (US Supreme Court, May 22, 2017)

[重要] 美國聯邦最高法院對於專利訴訟的審判地問題，全員一致做出重要見解，改變了下級法院自1990年以來對於 "reside" 這個字的寬鬆解釋，限制了往後專利權人起訴的法院選擇。

TC HEARTLAND LLC v. KRAFT FOODS GROUP BRANDS LLC (US Supreme Court, May 22, 2017)

Supreme Court Limits Where Patent Lawsuits Can Be Filed (Wall Street Journal, May 22, 2017)

Supreme Court Ruling Could Hinder ‘Patent Trolls’ (New York Times, May 22, 2017)

Supreme Court Reins-In Patent Venue (PatentlyO, May 22, 2017)

關於專利侵權訴訟的審判地 (venue) 應該在哪，28 U. S. C. §1400(b)的法條文字是 “[a]ny civil action for patent infringement may be brought in the judicial district where the defendant resides, or where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business.” 其中關於 "resides" 的意思，1957年美國聯邦最高法院曾經在Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Products Corp., 353 U.S. 222案做出見解：" for purposes of §1400(b) a domestic corporation “resides” only in its State of incorporation."

但後來國會修改了另外一條28 U. S. C. §1391(c)，把關於審判地的一般原則規定修改成 “[e]xcept as otherwise provided by law” and “[f]or all venue purposes,” a corporation “shall be deemed to reside, if a defendant, in any judicial district in which such defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to the civil action in question.”

爭點在於，1957年關於專利訴訟審判地的特別規定，跟後來修改的一般審判地規定的關係究竟是甚麼。關於這點，美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院1990年在VE Holding Corp. v. Johnson Gas Appliance Co., 917 F. 2d 1574案，採用了1391條 "in any judicial district" 來解釋1400條的resides。這讓專利權人可以在 "any judicial district" 起訴被告。

現在聯邦最高法院翻盤。聯邦最高法院認為，後來修改的1391條的審判地一般規定，沒有變更1400條關於專利侵權審判地的特別規定。因此關於專利侵權訴訟，又回到了1957年的Fourco案的見解："a domestic corporation “resides” only in its State of incorporation."

往後專利權人要起訴，選擇審判地比較受限制，要更多的倚靠 "where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business" 來去東德州起訴。這中間有諸多問題，持續觀察後續實務發展吧。