On May 22, 2017, the Supreme Court published its decision in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, 581 U.S. __ (2017), concerning venue in a patent infringement suit. The question before the Court was whether the 2011 amendment to the general venue statute 28 U.S.C. §1391 replaces the definition announced in Fourco, and in so doing would allow a plaintiff to bring a patent infringement lawsuit against a corporation in any district in which the corporation is subject to personal jurisdiction. Petitioner TC Heartland, is organized under Indiana law and headquartered in Indiana. Respondent Kraft Foods, organized under Delaware law sued for patent infringement in Delaware, alleging that TC Heartland's product sold in Delaware infringed one of Kraft's patents.
On May 1, 2017, the Federal Circuit published its decision in Helsinn Healthcare v. Teva Pharmaceuticals, No. 3:11-cv-03962-MLC-DEA, (May. 1, 2017) concerning infringement of four patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 7,947,724 ("'724 patent"); 7,947,725 ("'725 patent"); 7,960,424 ("'424 patent") and 8,598,219 ("'219 patent"). Teva defended that the patents were invalid under the "on-sale bar" provision of 35 USC §102. The District Court held that Teva infringed all of the patents and that the patents were not invalid. Teva appealed. The Federal Circuit reversed the District Court's decision, holding that all four patents were invalid and thus not infringed.