TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC

Editor's Note :

TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC

Opinion analysis: An extremely narrow Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ruling – Danielle D'Onfro

Argument analysis: Justices seem receptive to inmate’s juror-discrimination claims – Amy Howe

Opinion analysis: Justices sidestep decision on propriety of "cy pres" class-action settlements – Ronald Mann

SCOTUSblog Coverage

SCOTUSblog Coverage

Mar. 2019

Featured Posts

Sponsored by Casetext

SCOTUStalk see all

Email Digest Sign-Up

Merits Case Pages and Archives

Major Cases

Recent Decisions

Current Relists

Recent Special Features

Live Blog Archives

Mar. 2019

Download our App in the Apple Store

Videos see all

Peabody Award

Sigma Delta Chi

National Press Club Award

Silver Gavel Award

American Gavel Award

Webby Award

Conference of March 15, 2019

Docket No.	Op. Below	Argument	Opinion	Vote	Author	Term
16-341	Fed. Cir.	Mar 27, 2017 Tr.Aud.	May 22, 2017	8-0	Thomas	OT 2016

Disclosure: Goldstein & Russell, P.C., whose attorneys contribute to this blog in various capacities, is among the counsel on an amicus brief by Ericsson Inc., Allergan, Inc., and Traxxas L.P. in support of the respondent in this case.

Holding: The patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), provides that "[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." As applied to domestic corporations, “reside[nce]” in Section 1400(b) refers only to the state of incorporation; the amendments to Section 1391 did not modify the meaning of Section 1400(b) as interpreted in Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Products.

Judgment: Reversed and remanded, 8-0, in an opinion by Justice Thomas on May 22, 2017. Justice Gorsuch took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.

Opinion analysis: Justices rein in Federal Circuit’s lax rules on patent venue (Ronald Mann)
Argument analysis: Justices hear horror stories about venue for patent litigation (Ronald Mann)
Argument preview: Justices to consider venue for patent litigation (Ronald Mann)
Justices grant review in four new cases (Amy Howe)
Petition of the day (Kate Howard)

Date	Proceedings and Orders (key to color coding)
Jul 8 2016	Application (16A45) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from July 28, 2016 to September 12, 2016, submitted to The Chief Justice.
Jul 13 2016	Application (16A45) granted by The Chief Justice extending the time to file until September 12, 2016.
Sep 12 2016	Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due October 17, 2016)
Sep 27 2016	Brief amici curiae of 32 Internet Companies, Retailers and Associations filed.
Sep 28 2016	Order extending time to file response to petition to and including November 16, 2016.
Oct 3 2016	Consent to the filing of amicus curiae briefs, in support of either party or of neither party, received from counsel for petitioner.
Oct 5 2016	Brief amicus curiae of Washington Legal Foundation filed.
Oct 12 2016	Brief amici curiae of The Electronic Frontier Foundation, et al. filed.
Oct 14 2016	Brief amici curiae of American Bankers Association, et al. filed.
Oct 17 2016	Brief amicus curiae of Paul R, Michel filed.
Oct 17 2016	Brief amici curiae of Dell Inc., and The Software & Information Industry Association filed.
Oct 17 2016	Brief amici curiae of 56 Professors of Law and Economics filed.
Nov 16 2016	Brief of respondent Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC in opposition filed. (Distributed)
Nov 21 2016	DISTRIBUTED for Conference of December 9, 2016.
Nov 21 2016	Reply of petitioner TC Heartland LLC filed. (Distributed)
Dec 2 2016	Letter of December 2, 2016, received from counsel for the petitioner. (Distributed)
Dec 14 2016	Petition GRANTED.
Jan 30 2017	Joint appendix filed. (Public Record)
Jan 30 2017	Brief of petitioner TC Heartland LLC filed.
Jan 31 2017	Motion to file the joint appendix under seal with redacted copies for the public record filed by petitioner TC Heartland LLC.
Feb 3 2017	SET FOR ARGUMENT on Monday, March 27, 2017
Feb 6 2017	Record requested from the U.S.C.A. for the Federal Circuit.
Feb 6 2017	Brief amicus curiae of General Electric Company in support of neither party filed.
Feb 6 2017	Brief amicus curiae of National Association of Realtors filed.
Feb 6 2017	Brief amici curiae of The Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Public Knowledge filed.
Feb 6 2017	Brief amici curiae of Texas, et al. filed.
Feb 6 2017	Brief amicus curiae of American Bar Association filed.
Feb 6 2017	Brief amicus curiae of Engine Advocacy filed.
Feb 6 2017	Brief amicus curiae of Software & Information Industry Association filed.
Feb 6 2017	Brief amicus curiae of BSA l The Software Alliance filed.
Feb 6 2017	Brief amicus curiae of Washington Legal Foundation filed.
Feb 6 2017	Brief amici curiae of American Bankers Association, et al. filed.
Feb 6 2017	Brief amici curiae of Intel Corporation, and Dell Inc. filed.
Feb 6 2017	Brief amicus curiae of ACT l The App Association filed.
Feb 6 2017	Brief amici curiae of 61 Professors of Law and Economics filed.
Feb 6 2017	Brief amicus curiae of Unified Patents Inc. filed.
Feb 6 2017	Brief amicus curiae of The Generic Pharmaceutical Association filed.
Feb 6 2017	Brief amicus curiae of American Intellectual Property Law Association in support of neither party filed.
Feb 6 2017	Brief amici curiae of 48 Internet Companies, Retailers and Associations filed.
Feb 6 2017	Brief amicus curiae of Orange County Intellectual Property Law Association filed.
Feb 6 2017	Brief amicus curiae of The Intellectual Property Law Association of Chicago in support of neither party filed.
Feb 6 2017	Appendix of amicus curiae The Intellectual Property Law Association of Chicago in support of neither party filed.
Feb 8 2017	Motion DISTRIBUTED for Conference of February 24, 2017.
Feb 14 2017	Record received from the U.S.C.A. Federal Circuit. The record is electronic and available on PACER.
Feb 14 2017	Record received from the U.S.D.C. Delaware. The record is electronic and partially SEALED.
Feb 22 2017	CIRCULATED.
Feb 27 2017	Motion to file the joint appendix under seal with redacted copies for the public record GRANTED.
Mar 1 2017	Brief of respondent Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC filed. (Distributed)
Mar 8 2017	Brief amicus curiae of Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) filed. (Distributed)
Mar 8 2017	Brief amici curiae of Ericsson Inc., et al. filed. (Distributed)
Mar 8 2017	Brief amici curiae of 22 Law, Economics and Business Professors filed. (Distributed)
Mar 8 2017	Brief amicus curiae of Papool S. Chaudhari filed. (Distributed)
Mar 8 2017	Brief amicus curiae of Genentech, Inc. filed. (Distributed)
Mar 8 2017	Brief amici curiae of Biotechnology Innovation Organization, et al. filed. (Distributed)
Mar 8 2017	Brief amicus curiae of Whirlpool Corp. filed. (Distributed)
Mar 8 2017	Brief amicus curiae of TDE Petroleum Data Solutions, Inc. filed. (Distributed)
Mar 8 2017	Brief amici curiae of Professors of Patent Law and Civil Procedure filed. (Distributed)
Mar 8 2017	Brief amici curiae of 33 Practicing-Entity Patent Owners filed. (Distributed)
Mar 8 2017	Brief amici curiae of Eighteen Individuals and Organizations Representing Inventors and Patent Owners filed. (Distributed)
Mar 20 2017	Reply of petitioner TC Heartland LLC filed. (Distributed)
Mar 27 2017	Argued. For petitioner: James W. Dabney, New York, N. Y. For respondent: William M. Jay, Washington, D. C.
May 22 2017	Judgment REVERSED and case REMANDED. Thomas, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which all other Members joined, except Gorsuch, J., who took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Jun 26 2017	JUDGMENT ISSUED.

Featured Posts

Opinion analysis: An extremely narrow Fair Debt Collection Practices Act ruling – Danielle D'Onfro

Argument analysis: Justices seem receptive to inmate’s juror-discrimination claims – Amy Howe

Opinion analysis: Justices sidestep decision on propriety of "cy pres" class-action settlements – Ronald Mann
Sponsored by Casetext
SCOTUStalk see all
Email Digest Sign-Up
Receive a daily email digest from Feedburner by entering your email.
Merits Case Pages and Archives

Archives

or

This Week at the Court
The Supreme Court released orders from the March 15 conference on Monday. The justices granted four cases for next term: Kansas v. Garcia, Mathena v. Malvo, Ramos v. Louisiana and Kahler v. Kansas. The justices also called for the views of the U.S. solicitor general in two cases: Patterson v. Walgreen Co. and Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc.
On Tuesday, the justices released their opinions in three cases: Air and Liquid Systems Corp. v. DeVries, Nielsen v. Preap and Washington State Department of Licensing v. Cougar Den Inc.
On Wednesday, the justices released their opinions in two cases: Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP and Frank v. Gaos.
On Monday, the justices heard oral argument in Virginia House of Delegates v. Bethune-Hill and Smith v. Berryhill.
On Tuesday, the justices heard oral argument in Cochise Consultancy Inc. v. United States, ex rel. Hunt.
On Wednesday, the justices heard oral argument in Flowers v. Mississippi.
On Friday, the justices met for their March 22 conference; John Elwood's Relist Watch compiles the petitions that were relisted for this conference.
Major Cases
- Lamone v. Benisek
  In case in which the plaintiffs allege that a Maryland congressional district was gerrymandered to retaliate against them for their political views: (1) whether the various legal claims articulated by the three-judge district court are unmanageable; (2) whether the three-judge district court erred when, in granting plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, it resolved disputes of material fact as to multiple elements of plaintiffs’ claims, failed to view the evidence in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, and treated as “undisputed” evidence that is the subject of still-unresolved hearsay and other evidentiary objections; and (3) whether the three-judge district court abused its discretion in entering an injunction despite the plaintiffs’ years-long delay in seeking injunctive relief, rendering the remedy applicable to at most one election before the next decennial census necessitates another redistricting.
- Kisor v. Wilkie
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule Auer v. Robbins and Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., which direct courts to defer to an agency’s reasonable interpretation of its own ambiguous regulation.
- Rucho v. Common Cause
  (1) Whether plaintiffs have standing to press their partisan gerrymandering claims; (2) whether plaintiffs’ partisan gerrymandering claims are justiciable; and (3) whether North Carolina’s 2016 congressional map is, in fact, an unconstitutional partisan gerrymander.
- New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York
  Whether New York City’s ban on transporting a licensed, locked and unloaded handgun to a home or shooting range outside city limits is consistent with the Second Amendment, the commerce clause and the constitutional right to travel.
- The American Legion v. American Humanist Association
  (1) Whether a 93-year-old memorial to the fallen of World War I is unconstitutional merely because it is shaped like a cross; (2) whether the constitutionality of a passive display incorporating religious symbolism should be assessed under the tests articulated in Lemon v. Kurtzman, Van Orden v. Perry, Town of Greece v. Galloway or some other test; and (3) whether, if the test from Lemon v. Kurtzman applies, the expenditure of funds for the routine upkeep and maintenance of a cross-shaped war memorial, without more, amounts to an excessive entanglement with religion in violation of the First Amendment.
- Gamble v. United States
  Whether the Supreme Court should overrule the “separate sovereigns” exception to the double jeopardy clause.
see all this term’s cases »
Recent Decisions
- Frank v. Gaos This class action settlement case is remanded for the courts below to address the plaintiffs’ standing in light of Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins.
- Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP A business engaged in no more than nonjudicial foreclosure proceedings is not a “debt collector” under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, except for the limited purpose of enforcing security interests under 15 U. S. C. §1692f(6).
- Air and Liquid Systems Corp. v. DeVries In the maritime tort context, a product manufacturer has a duty to warn when its product requires incorporation of a part, the manufacturer knows or has reason to know that the integrated product is likely to be dangerous for its intended uses, and the manufacturer has no reason to believe that the product’s users will realize that danger.
- Nielsen v. Preap The judgments of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit -- that respondents, who are deportable for certain specified crimes, are not subject to 8 U. S. C. §1226(c)(2)’s mandatory-detention requirement because they were not arrested by immigration officials as soon as they were released from jail -- are reversed, and the cases are remanded.
- Washington State Department of Licensing v. Cougar Den Inc. The Supreme Court of Washington’s judgment -- that the “right to travel” provision of the 1855 Treaty Between the United States and the Yakama Nation of Indians pre-empts the state’s fuel tax as applied to Cougar Den’s importation of fuel by public highway for sale within the reservation -- is affirmed.
see all this term’s cases »
Current Relists
- Altitude Express Inc. v. Zarda Whether the prohibition in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1), against employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” encompasses discrimination based on an individual’s sexual orientation.
- Bostock v. Clayton County, Georgia Whether discrimination against an employee because of sexual orientation constitutes prohibited employment discrimination “because of . . . sex” within the meaning of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2.
- Box v. Planned Parenthood of Indiana and Kentucky Inc. (1) Whether a state may require health-care facilities to dispose of fetal remains in the same manner as other human remains, i.e., by burial or cremation; and (2) whether a state may prohibit abortions motivated solely by the race, sex or disability of the fetus and require abortion doctors to inform patients of the prohibition.
More Petitions »
Recent Special Features
Statistical Snapshot

Cases argued 52

Cases decided 26

Summary reversals 4

Merits cases granted to date 74

see all »
Live Blog Archives
See all
Twitter Feed

Tweets by @SCOTUSblog

Full Calendar Submit Event

Orders/Opinions
Arguments
Conferences

Events
Holidays
Multiple

Download our App in the Apple Store
Videos see all

Justice Sotomayor and Eva Longoria Bastón

On March 1, Justice Sonia Sotomayor spoke with actress Eva Longoria Bastón about Sotomayor’s life, her new children’s book and more.

Peabody Award
Awarded the Peabody Award for excellence in electronic media.
Sigma Delta Chi
Awarded the Sigma Delta Chi deadline reporting award for online coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
National Press Club Award
Awarded the National Press Club's Breaking News Award for coverage of the Affordable Care Act decision.
Silver Gavel Award
Awarded the Silver Gavel Award by the American Bar Association for fostering the American public’s understanding of the law and the legal system.
American Gavel Award
Awarded the American Gavel Award for Distinguished Reporting About the Judiciary to recognize the highest standards of reporting about courts and the justice system.
Webby Award
Awarded the Webby Award for excellence on the internet.

Cases argued	52
Cases decided	26
Summary reversals	4
Merits cases granted to date	74

1
Conference

4
Orders
Opinions

15
Conference

18
Orders
VIRGINIA HOUSE OF DELEGATES V. BETHUNE-HILL (18-281)
SMITH V. BERRYHILL (17-1606)

19
COCHISE CONSULTANCY INC. V. U.S., EX REL. HUNT (18-315)
Opinions

20
FLOWERS V. MISSISSIPPI (17-9572)
Opinions

22
Conference

25
Orders
PDR NETWORK, LLC V. CARLTON & HARRIS CHIROPRACTIC INC. (17-1705)
THE DUTRA GROUP V. BATTERTON (18-266)

26
RUCHO V. COMMON CAUSE (18-422)
LAMONE V. BENISEK (18-726)
Opinions

27
KISOR V. WILKIE (18-15)
Opinions

29
Conference