University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository
Abstract
Plaintiffs brought an action for patent infringement against defendant corporation in the Federal District Court for the Southern Division of California, alleging only defendant\u27s residence within the district. Defendant moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that defendant, being a Delaware corporation, did not reside within the district, thus rendering the venue defective. Plaintiffs replied that the word resides, as used in the patent infringement venue section of the code, which states that 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, is controlled by the definition of residence in the general venue provision for suits against corporations. The general provision states that the judicial district wherein the corporation is incorporated or licensed to do business or is doing business . . . shall be regarded as the residence of such corporation for venue purposes. Held, the patent infringement venue provision being the exclusive venue provision controlling such suits, defendant does not reside within the district since it is not an inhabitant thereof. The definition of residence in the general venue provision does not control. Venue within the district is therefore improper and the action must be transferred. Gulf Research and Development Co. v. Schlumberger Well Sitrveying Corp., (D.C. Cal. 1950) 92 F. Supp. 16
