Background
Andra Group, LP is a patent owner that sued several related Victoria’s Secret entities for infringement of a patent covering webpage display technology—specifically, technology for displaying article thumbnails with distinctive characteristics in a “master display field.” Andra’s infringement claims focused on the victoriassecret.com website and associated smartphone applications.
Andra filed suit in the Eastern District of Texas. Victoria’s Secret Stores, LLC—which operates the physical retail stores—had a clear presence in the district and posed no venue problem. But the other defendants (the “Non-Store Defendants”) were a different matter: Victoria’s Secret Stores Brand Management, Inc. (which designs and markets the brand), Victoria’s Secret Direct Brand Management, LLC (which operates the website), and L Brands, Inc. (the corporate parent) had no employees, no offices, and no physical presence whatsoever in the Eastern District of Texas.
The Non-Store Defendants moved to dismiss for improper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), the patent venue statute interpreted by the Supreme Court in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC (2017). Andra argued that the Non-Store Defendants had a “regular and established place of business” in the district because the retail store entity (Victoria’s Secret Stores, LLC) operated stores there. The district court dismissed the Non-Store Defendants, and Andra appealed.
The Court’s Holding
The Federal Circuit affirmed. Writing for a unanimous panel, Judge Taranto held that under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), a defendant must itself have a regular and established place of business in the district—the place of business of a related or affiliated entity cannot be imputed to a corporate sibling or parent simply because they share a corporate family or a brand name.
The court rejected Andra’s agency theory, explaining that even if one entity could theoretically act as the agent of another, the mere fact that related companies share a parent, a brand, or a business purpose is not enough to establish an agency relationship for venue purposes. When related companies have “maintained corporate separateness,” the Federal Circuit held, the physical presence of one corporation is not imputed to another for patent venue purposes. Because the Non-Store Defendants operated entirely separately from the retail stores—with their own employees, their own functions, and no physical footprint in the district—venue was improper as to them.
Key Takeaways
- Patent venue under § 1400(b) requires that the specific defendant have its own regular and established place of business in the district; affiliated entities’ presence does not count unless a genuine agency relationship exists.
- A corporate parent’s or sibling’s physical stores in a district do not create venue for web-only or brand-management entities in the same corporate family if those entities maintain separate operations and corporate formalities.
- Patent plaintiffs targeting digital-only business units of large retail groups must carefully identify which specific legal entities are the proper defendants and where those entities maintain a physical presence.
- After TC Heartland, corporate structuring decisions—such as separating e-commerce from brick-and-mortar retail into distinct legal entities—can have significant strategic implications for patent venue.
Why It Matters
Since TC Heartland reinvigorated the patent venue statute in 2017, patent litigation strategy has revolved around where corporate defendants actually reside or have a physical place of business. This case adds an important clarification: even when a lawsuit targets a company’s digital products and online services, plaintiffs cannot simply point to a corporate affiliate’s retail stores to establish venue in a preferred forum. Large corporations that operate through multiple subsidiaries—with separate legal entities for retail, e-commerce, brand management, and corporate holding—may find that each entity’s venue exposure depends on its own physical footprint, not the group’s combined presence.
For patent plaintiffs, the decision underscores the importance of conducting careful pre-suit venue investigations that go entity by entity rather than brand by brand. For defendants, it reinforces the value of maintaining genuine corporate separateness between operating subsidiaries, which can limit patent venue exposure even when sister companies operate in a particular district.