Anuwave LLC v. Associated Banc-Corp.
Filing
4
MEMORANDUM Opinion and Order. Signed by the Honorable Milton I. Shadur on 10/26/2016:Mailed notice(clw, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
ANUWAVE LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
ASSOCIATED BANC-CORP d/b/a
ASSOCIATED BANK, N.A.,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No. 16 C 9925
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Anuwave LLC ("Anuwave") has just filed a "Complaint for Infringement of Patent"
("Complaint") against Associated Banc-Corp d/b/a Associated Bank, N.A. ("Associated"), and
the action has been assigned to this Court's calendar under the random assignment system in
effect in this judicial district. This memorandum opinion and order is issued sua sponte because
of the problematic choice of forum engaged in by Anuwave's counsel.
As the Complaint plainly reads, what is involved here can well be characterized as forum
shopping with a vengeance. Complaint ¶ 2 identifies Anuwave as "a Texas entity with its
principal place of business at 1333 McDermott Drive, Suite 150, Allen, TX 75013," while
Complaint ¶ 3 asserts, on information and belief, that Associated is a bank that "is a Wisconsin
corporation, having a principal place of business at 43 Main St., Green Bay, WI 54301." And for
its part Congress has sought fit to enact a special venue provision as to patent infringement
actions in 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) ("Section 1400(b)"):
Any civil action for patent infringement may be brought 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.
Whatever may be said in other sections of Title 28 about where a corporation "resides,"
the Supreme Court reconfirmed more than four decades ago its earlier decision that for Section
1400(b) purposes that word stands for the corporation's state of incorporation. As Brunette
Machine Wks., Ltd. v. Kockum Indus., Inc. 406 U.S. 706, 707 n.2 (1972) held:
Petitioner does not 'reside' in Oregon, because the residence of a corporation for
purposes of § 1400(b) is its place of incorporation. Fourco Glass Co. v.
Transmirra Prods. Corp., 353 U.S. 222 (1957), discussed infra at 711 and n.10.
And as Fourco Glass, 353 U.S. at 228, 229 had held:
We think it is clear that § 1391(c) is a general corporation venue statute, whereas
§ 1400(b) is a special venue statute applicable, specifically, to all defendants in a
particular type of actions, i.e., patent infringement actions.
*
*
*
We hold that 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) is the sole and exclusive provision controlling
venue in patent infringement actions, and that it is not to be supplemented by the
provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1391(e).
So Anuwave has failed to qualify in terms of the first Section 1400(b) alternative. And as
to the other alternative, Associated may perhaps have "committed acts of infringement" in this
Northern District of Illinois as the Complaint alleges (an allegation that need not be explored
here), but it is not even hinted that the Wisconsin bank has "a regular and established place of
business" here.
Accordingly both the Complaint and this action are dismissed on grounds of improper
venue. This dismissal is of course without prejudice to Anuwave's ability to sue Associated in
the bank's home territory (which it shares with the Green Bay Packers, not the Chicago Bears).
__________________________________________
Milton I. Shadur
Senior United States District Judge
Date: October 26, 2016
-2-
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?