Telebrands Corp. v. Illinois Industrial Tool, Inc., 1:17-cv-06765

Telebrands (New Jersey) sued Illinois Industrial Tool, Inc. (IIT) for patent infringement involving decorative lighting; Telebrands alleged venue in the District of New Jersey.
IIT moved to transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) to the Northern District of Illinois, arguing it resides in Illinois and lacks a regular and established place of business in New Jersey.
IIT submitted a sworn CFO declaration stating its headquarters, majority of employees, officers, and facilities are in Illinois and that it has no offices, employees, shareholders, representatives, contractors, or facilities in New Jersey.
Telebrands conceded IIT is an Illinois corporation and did not dispute residence; it offered no evidence showing IIT has a regular and established place of business in New Jersey.
Telebrands requested expedited venue discovery to try to establish IIT’s business presence in New Jersey. The parties did not brief infringement merits.
The Court found IIT established lack of a regular and established place of business in New Jersey, rejected Telebrands’ request for venue discovery as insufficient to defeat transfer, and ordered transfer to the Northern District of Illinois.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether venue is proper in the District of New Jersey under § 1400(b) (Second Clause: acts of infringement + regular and established place of business)	Telebrands alleged venue in complaint and sought discovery to show IIT’s connections to NJ; contended venue facts not yet fully developed	IIT argued it is deemed to reside in Illinois and has no regular and established place of business in New Jersey (supported by sworn CFO declaration)	Court held venue is improper in New Jersey because Telebrands failed to show the Regular and Established Element; transfer to N.D. Illinois granted
Whether Telebrands is entitled to venue-related discovery to try to save venue	Telebrands requested expedited discovery to investigate IIT’s presence in NJ	IIT argued discovery was unnecessary because its sworn declarations demonstrated lack of a regular and established place of business, and discovery would only address personal jurisdiction, not venue under § 1400(b)	Court denied discovery request; held that speculative or jurisdiction-focused discovery cannot defeat a proper § 1400(b) transfer showing

TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Grp. Brands LLC, 137 S. Ct. 1514 (2017) (interpreting § 1400(b): patent suits lie where defendant resides or where it has committed infringement and has a regular and established place of business)