Gesture Technology Partners, LLC v. Lenovo Group Ltd., 6:21-cv-00122

Background

Gesture Technology Partners sued Lenovo Group Ltd., Lenovo (United States) Inc. (Lenovo USA), and Motorola Mobility LLC for infringing four patents asserted against various smartphones and tablets; the complaint alleges direct and induced infringement.
Lenovo USA (North Carolina corp.) and Motorola (Delaware corp.) moved to dismiss for improper venue under Federal Rule 12(b)(3), arguing they do not reside in the Western District of Texas.
Gesture alleged venue was proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) because defendants maintain regular and established places of business in the district via: 50+ work‑from‑home employees (with some reimbursed for home offices), advertised Texas employee profiles (LinkedIn), authorized service centers, resellers, and a cited Austin address.
The core legal question was whether defendants have (1) committed acts of infringement in the district and (2) maintain a “regular and established place of business” there per In re Cray.
The court found plaintiffs’ evidence (remote employees, reimbursement, LinkedIn listings, and third‑party service centers/resellers) insufficient to establish defendants’ regular and established places of business in the Western District of Texas.
The court granted the motion and dismissed Lenovo (U.S.) Inc. and Motorola Mobility LLC for improper venue.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendants "reside" in the Western District under § 1400(b)	Venue proper because defendants have business presence in district	Defendants reside in their states of incorporation (NC, DE) so they do not reside in W.D. Tex.	Held: Defendants do not reside in W.D. Tex.; first prong not satisfied
Whether work‑from‑home employees create a "regular and established place of business"	50+ employees working from homes, reimbursements, and advertised employee profiles make those homes defendant’s places of business	Employee homes are not automatically the defendant’s place; reimbursements were one‑time and nationwide, no control/possession by defendants	Held: Employee homes do not establish a regular and established place of business of defendants
Whether reimbursements and LinkedIn/ads show employer control or ratification of employee homes	Reimbursements, posted job ads, and LinkedIn listings show company presence and ratification of addresses	Reimbursements were not conditioned on location; LinkedIn and business‑card style listings are speculative and insufficient to impute defendant control	Held: Reimbursements and LinkedIn evidence insufficient to establish defendant’s place
Whether third‑party authorized service centers/resellers are places "of the defendant" or agents	Service centers/resellers that repair/sell defendants’ products render those locations defendant places of business	Third parties are independent, serve competitors, and are not controlled by defendants; one‑time repair/sales are not regular conduct of defendant’s business	Held: Service centers/resellers are not defendants’ places of business and are not shown to be agents; venue not established via them

Key Cases Cited

TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Grp. Brands LLC, 137 S. Ct. 1514 (2017) (patent‑venue exclusivity; corporation resides only in state of incorporation)
In re Cray Inc., 871 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (three‑element test for a "regular and established place of business")
In re ZTE (USA) Inc., 890 F.3d 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (plaintiff bears burden on venue; contractual relationships alone insufficient)
In re Google LLC, 949 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2020) (one‑time maintenance/installation activities do not create a regular place of business)
Celgene Corp. v. Mylan Pharm. Inc., 17 F.4th 1111 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (business cards/LinkedIn are speculative to show employer‑controlled places)
Meyer v. Holley, 537 U.S. 280 (2003) (explaining agency elements for imputing conduct)
Andra Grp., LP v. Victoria's Secret Stores, L.L.C., 6 F.4th 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (corporate separateness prevents imputing one entity’s place to another)
American Cyanamid Co. v. Nopco Chem. Co., 388 F.2d 818 (4th Cir. 1968) (employee’s home is not automatically defendant’s place of business)