siteFiles/LibraryPhotos/8A9C62538C6C6ACBCF24F4D622C98AA6.jpg

CEO’S Private Residence Is Not a “Regular and Established Place of Business”; Plaintiff Must Identify “Infringing Activity”


By: Scott W. Doyle, Jonathan R. DeFosse, Jeffrey I.D. Lewis, Robert M. Masters, Ted M. Nissly

This week the Central District of California granted defendant's motion to dismiss for improper venue in Prolacta Bioscience, Inc. v. Ni-Q, LLC et al., 2-17-cv-04071 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2017) (Order, Judge S. James Otero, Dkt. 32).  Prolacta filed its patent infringement complaint on May 31, 2017, after the Supreme Court issued its TC Heartland decision, and the court found it did not sufficiently plead that Ni-Q had committed “acts of infringement” and had a “regular and established place of business” to show venue was appropriate under the second prong of 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b).

Additional Information
publications-detail.inc