Background
HTC Corporation, a Taiwanese smartphone manufacturer with its principal place of business in Taiwan, was sued for patent infringement in the District of Delaware. Following the Supreme Court’s 2017 decision in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands, which tightened venue requirements for domestic corporate defendants under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), HTC filed a mandamus petition asking the Federal Circuit to hold that the patent venue statute also applies to foreign corporations—meaning HTC could only be sued where it was incorporated or had a regular place of business.
HTC argued that the TC Heartland ruling’s reasoning should extend to foreign defendants, giving them the same venue protections as U.S. corporations. The Eastern District of Virginia declined to dismiss or transfer the case, and HTC sought immediate Federal Circuit review.
The Court’s Holding
The Federal Circuit denied the mandamus petition, reaffirming the longstanding “alien venue rule”: foreign (alien) defendants are wholly outside the operation of the federal venue statutes, both general and special. This means that 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b)—the patent venue statute that TC Heartland had held limits where domestic corporations may be sued—simply does not protect foreign corporations.
The court traced this rule to a century of precedent and congressional practice. Federal venue laws were designed to protect citizens from being haled into distant or inconvenient forums, but that protection was never meant to shield foreign defendants who chose to do business in the United States. The one exception Congress made in 2011 was to extend venue protections to alien natural persons with permanent resident status—a narrow carve-out that demonstrated Congress knew how to protect foreign individuals when it wished to do so, and chose not to extend that protection to foreign corporations.
As a result, a foreign corporation accused of patent infringement may be sued in any federal district court where it is subject to personal jurisdiction—effectively anywhere its products are sold or its activities are conducted.
Key Takeaways
- The patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), does not apply to foreign (alien) corporate defendants; the “alien venue rule” remains intact even after TC Heartland.
- Foreign corporations can be sued for patent infringement in any U.S. district where personal jurisdiction exists, giving patent holders broad geographic flexibility when suing foreign entities.
- Congress’s 2011 decision to extend venue protection to alien permanent residents but not foreign corporations was decisive in the court’s analysis—Congress knows how to grant venue protection when it chooses to.
- Foreign companies doing business in the United States face a significantly different patent litigation landscape than domestic corporations, which are limited to specific venues under TC Heartland.
Why It Matters
The TC Heartland decision dramatically constrained where domestic companies could be sued for patent infringement, largely ending the concentration of patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas. But In re HTC clarified that this benefit did not extend to foreign corporations—leaving Asian, European, and other international companies that sell products in the United States exposed to patent suits across the country.
For patent owners asserting rights against foreign device makers, electronics manufacturers, or software companies incorporated abroad, this ruling preserved flexibility to choose favorable forums. For foreign companies, it created an important strategic asymmetry: they cannot invoke the same venue protections as their U.S. competitors, even in parallel litigation. Companies importing products into the U.S. market should be aware that their foreign status may be a liability rather than an asset when it comes to defending patent cases.