Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Products Corp.

Background

A West Virginia company that made glass was sued for patent infringement in the Southern District of New York. The company said the case should be dismissed for lack of proper venue because, although it had an established place of business in New York, there was no showing it committed infringement there. The District Court agreed and dismissed; the Court of Appeals reversed, saying the general corporate venue law §1391(c) lets corporations be sued where they are "doing business." The Supreme Court took the case because lower courts were split and to address an older decision called Stonite.

Reasoning

The Court asked whether the special patent venue law §1400(b) stands alone or is supplemented by the general corporate venue rule §1391(c). Relying on the earlier Stonite decision and on the 1948 recodification notes, the Justices concluded Congress did not change the old patent venue rule. The Court explained that a specific statute for patent cases controls over a more general corporate venue statute. It therefore held §1400(b) is the sole and exclusive venue rule for patent infringement suits and reversed the Court of Appeals.

Real world impact

The ruling limits where patent lawsuits can be filed: companies cannot be hauled into court just because they are "doing business" in a district. Instead, suits must follow the narrower rules in §1400(b), such as the district of the defendant's residence or where infringement plus a regular place of business occurred. The case was sent back so the lower courts can decide whether actual infringement happened in New York.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Harlan dissented, arguing the Court gave too much weight to the revisers' notes and that those notes are unclear, agreeing with the Court of Appeals' view.