I found this: "Legal research tools from Casetext Search all cases and statutes... In re Oath Holdings Inc. 3 Citing cases High 5 Games, LLC v. Marks Civil Action No. 13-7161 (D.N.J. Aug. 9, 2019) Cited 1 times Show less Concluding that plaintiff failed to plead sufficient facts demonstrating personal jurisdiction over entities by virtue of an agency relationship, where it pleaded no facts demonstrating financial dependency or that the parent company interfered with the other entities' operations Whether a party waived or forfeited its right to assert an improper venue defense is also governed by Federal Circuit law. In re Oath Holdings Inc., 908 F.3d 1301, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2018). The patent venue statute provides that venue is only proper "in the judicial district where the defendant resides, or where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business." Almondnet, Inc. v. Oath Holdings, Inc. 16-CV-1557 (E.D.N.Y. Dec. 5, 2018) In the determination of the second petition for a writ of mandamus filed by the Defendant, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that "under § 1406(a), the district court now must either dismiss the case or transfer the case to a district or division in which it could have been brought." In re Oath Holdings, — F.3d —, 2018 WL 5930405 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 14, 2018) (quotation marks omitted). BACKGROUND Columbia Sportswear N. Am., Inc. v. Seirus Innovative Accessories, Inc. 2018-1329 (Fed. Cir. Nov. 13, 2019) Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(g)(2), (h)(1). "[I]ssues of waiver or forfeiture of patent-venue rights under § 1400(b) and § 1406(a) are governed by [Federal Circuit] law," In re Oath Holdings Inc., 908 F.3d 1301, 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2018), and we addressed the circumstances under which a district court can find patent venue waived in In re Micron, 875 F.3d at 1100-01. In Micron, as here, the defendant failed to raise a venue defense contesting that the definition of "resides" in 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) was trumped by the patent-venue statute, § 1400, in its first motion under Rule 12 but proceeded to do so in a later motion after the Court issued TC Heartland. Noting that controlling precedent precluded a district court from accepting a litigant's objection to venue before TC Heartland, we held that the venue defense was "not 'available'" and that Rule 12's waiver rule was inapplicable. Make your practice more effective and efficient with Casetext’s legal research suite. © 2019 Casetext Inc. Casetext, Inc. and Casetext are not a law firm and do not provide legal advice."
