In Re: Bigcommerce, Inc.
890 F.3d 978
Fed. Cir.2018Background
- Diem LLC and Express Mobile sued BigCommerce for patent infringement in the Eastern District of Texas.
- BigCommerce is a Texas-incorporated corporation headquartered in Austin (Western District of Texas) and has no place of business in the Eastern District.
- After TC Heartland issued, BigCommerce moved to dismiss/transfer for improper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), arguing it "resides" only in its state of incorporation's single appropriate district.
- The Eastern District rejected the challenge, adopting an approach that a domestic corporation "resides" in every judicial district within its state of incorporation when the state has multiple districts.
- BigCommerce petitioned the Federal Circuit for mandamus to vacate the district court orders denying dismissal/transfer; the Federal Circuit granted the petitions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a domestic corporation incorporated in a multi-district state "resides" in every judicial district of that state for § 1400(b) venue | BigCommerce: "Resides" means only one judicial district — where principal place of business or registered office is located | Diem/Express Mobile: Corporation resides in each judicial district within its state of incorporation | Court held: "Resides" means only a single judicial district — the district of the principal place of business, or if none, the district of the registered office |
| Proper fallback when no principal place of business in the state | BigCommerce: Use registered office listed in corporate filings | Diem/Express Mobile: (argued residency across districts) | Held: If no principal place of business in the state, venue defaults to district of registered office |
| Whether mandamus was appropriate despite waiver rulings below | BigCommerce: Mandamus appropriate due to unsettled, important question post-TC Heartland; waiver rulings incorrect or would be futile | Diem/Express Mobile: District court found waiver; mandamus inappropriate | Held: Mandamus appropriate because issue is basic and unsettled and waiver determinations were incorrect or not dispositive |
| Interpretation of § 1400(b) text and history | BigCommerce: Text, history, and precedent support single-district reading | Diem/Express Mobile: Modern business realities and practical difficulties justify broader reading | Held: Text, structure, history, and precedent control; practical policy concerns are for Congress |
Key Cases Cited
- TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, 137 S. Ct. 1514 (2017) (held corporate residence for § 1400(b) is state of incorporation)
- Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Products Corp., 353 U.S. 222 (1957) (interpreting patent venue statute and corporate residence)
- Stonite Products Co. v. Melvin Lloyd Co., 315 U.S. 561 (1942) (refused to treat a corporation as resident of multiple districts within a state)
- In re Cray Inc., 871 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (mandamus appropriate to resolve venue questions after TC Heartland)
- In re Micron Tech., Inc., 875 F.3d 1091 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (addressed waiver and venue objections post-TC Heartland)
- Shaw v. Quincy Mining Co., 145 U.S. 444 (1892) (historic authority on corporate inhabitancy and district-level residence)