Legal Opinion
Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co.
District Court, N.D. California
Decided April 12, 1990No. C-90-0373 SAWPublishedCited by 8 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
WEIGEL, District Judge.
Plaintiff sues for patent infringement. Defendant moves to dismiss or transfer, arguing that venue in this district is improper because defendant is incorporated in Indiana.
I
The patent venue provision provides in part that an action for patent infringement may be brought “in the judicial district where the defendant resides.” 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). 1 It has been a longstanding rule that for purposes of venue under Section 1400(b) a corporation resides only in its place of incorporation. Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Products Corp., 353 U.S. 222, 77…
2Cases cited9 opinions
- Lorillard v. PonsSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Radzanower v. Touche Ross & Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Products Corp.Supreme Court of the United States · 1957
- United States v. JamesSupreme Court of the United States · 1986
- Brunette MacHine Works, Ltd. v. Kockum Industries, Inc.Supreme Court of the United States · 1972
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by8 opinions
- Ve Holding Corporation v. Johnson Gas Appliance CompanyCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1990
- LG Electronics Inc. v. Advance Creative Computer Corp.District Court, E.D. Virginia · 2001
- In Re the Regents of the University of CaliforniaCourt of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 1992
- Biosyntec, Inc. v. Baxter Healthcare Corp.District Court, D. Oregon · 1990
- Injection Research Specialists v. Polaris Industries, L.P.District Court, D. Colorado · 1991
3 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.