GreatGigz Solutions, LLC v. ZipRecruiter, Inc.
6:21-cv-00172
W.D. Tex.Feb 11, 2022Background
- GreatGigz Solutions, LLC sued ZipRecruiter, Inc. in the W.D. Tex. (filed Feb. 25, 2021) for alleged infringement of two patents relating to an online employment service.
- GreatGigz alleged venue was proper because ZipRecruiter maintained a "regular and established place of business" in the Western District of Texas (pointing to an Austin lease and remote employees in the district).
- ZipRecruiter (a Delaware corporation) moved to dismiss for improper venue under Rule 12(b)(3) on May 7, 2021; ZipRecruiter does not have a Texas office at the time of filing and its Austin lease ended about eight months before suit.
- GreatGigz argued the COVID-19-driven shift to remote work effectively moved ZipRecruiter’s place of business to employees’ homes and that the prior lease showed a continued need for an Austin presence.
- The court applied the § 1400(b)/Cray three-part test and held that (1) ZipRecruiter does not "reside" in W.D. Tex., (2) the lapsed lease did not establish a current regular and established place of business at the time of filing, and (3) remote employees’ homes did not constitute ZipRecruiter’s regular and established place of business.
- The Motion to Dismiss for Improper Venue was GRANTED; venue was improper in the Western District of Texas.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether ZipRecruiter "resides" in the district under § 1400(b) | ZipRecruiter has a sufficient district presence to be sued here | A domestic corporation "resides" only in its state of incorporation (Delaware) | ZipRecruiter does not reside in W.D. Tex.; first prong fails |
| Whether a prior Austin lease (terminated ~8 months before filing) establishes a regular and established place of business | The prior lease shows an Austin place of business and continuity of presence | The lease ended before filing and cannot create current venue | Lease terminated before filing is insufficient; venue not established by it |
| Whether remote employees’ homes constitute a "regular and established place of business" | Employees working from home in the district now serve as ZipRecruiter’s physical place of business | Employee homes are not owned, controlled, or established by ZipRecruiter; employees not required to live there | Employee homes are not the defendant’s place and are insufficient for venue |
| Whether COVID-19 changes the § 1400(b) analysis or permits a broader, equitable test | Pandemic-caused remote work effectively transferred business location to employees’ homes; courts should adapt | Pandemic does not alter the statutory test or plaintiff’s burden to prove venue | Court rejects pandemic-based expansion; applies traditional present-tense test at filing |
Key Cases Cited
- TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Grp. Brands LLC, 137 S. Ct. 1514 (2017) (domestic corporations "reside" only in their state of incorporation for patent-venue purposes)
- In re Cray Inc., 871 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (adopts three-part test for a "regular and established place of business")
- In re ZTE (USA) Inc., 890 F.3d 1008 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (plaintiff bears the burden to establish proper patent-venue)
- Personal Audio, LLC v. Google, Inc., 280 F. Supp. 3d 922 (E.D. Tex. 2017) (venue is determined by facts as of the date the complaint is filed)
- Welch Scientific Co. v. Human Engineering Inst., Inc., 416 F.2d 32 (7th Cir. 1969) (articulates a "reasonable and fair" standard for temporal venue analysis, contrasted in this opinion)
- Artis v. D.C., 138 S. Ct. 594 (2018) (statutory interpretation begins with the statute's plain language)