Unreported / Non-Citable
Background
In October 2025, WeCrevention Inc. sued Dell Inc. and Dell Technologies, Inc. (collectively, “Dell”) for patent infringement in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Dell responded by filing a motion to dismiss the case for improper venue under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3), arguing that the Eastern District was not the correct forum for the lawsuit. As an alternative to dismissal, Dell requested that the case be transferred to the Western District of Texas, where its headquarters are located.
The central dispute revolved around whether Dell maintained a “regular and established place of business” within the Eastern District of Texas at the time the lawsuit was filed, a key requirement for establishing venue in patent cases under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). WeCrevention pointed to a facility in Flower Mound, Texas, that the same court had previously recognized as Dell’s place of business in a different case, as well as the presence of numerous Dell employees working from home within the district.
The Court’s Holding
The Court granted Dell’s motion, finding that venue was improper in the Eastern District of Texas. It ordered the case to be transferred to the Western District of Texas rather than be dismissed. The court’s analysis followed the two-prong test for patent venue. First, it noted that Dell “resides” in Delaware, its state of incorporation, not Texas, so the first prong was not met.
Second, the court examined whether Dell had a “regular and established place of business” in the district. It found that circumstances had materially changed since its prior ruling regarding the Flower Mound facility. Dell provided evidence that it had completely ceased operations and moved out of that facility by October 1, 2025, nine days *before* WeCrevention filed its complaint. Because venue facts are assessed as of the filing date, the court concluded the now-empty facility could not serve as a basis for venue. The court also rejected WeCrevention’s arguments that the homes of Dell’s remote employees constituted places of business, citing the Federal Circuit’s binding precedent in *In re Cray*, which requires stronger ties, such as the employer leasing or controlling the employee’s home space. Similarly, the locations of Dell’s third-party business partners were not found to be Dell’s own places of business.
Key Takeaways
- Venue in a patent infringement lawsuit is determined based on the facts as they exist on the date the complaint is filed. A defendant’s prior business presence in a district is not sufficient if it has ended before the suit commences.
- Under the Federal Circuit’s current precedent in In re Cray, the mere presence of remote employees working from their homes in a district is generally insufficient to establish a “regular and established place of business” for their employer.
- The physical locations of a defendant’s business partners or service providers do not qualify as the defendant’s place of business for venue purposes unless the defendant establishes, ratifies, or exercises direct control over those locations.
Why It Matters
This ruling reinforces the strict requirements for establishing proper venue in patent litigation following the Supreme Court’s landmark decision in *TC Heartland*. It demonstrates that a defendant can proactively defeat venue in a particular district by moving its operations, even if it had a significant presence there shortly before a lawsuit is filed. Companies can therefore exercise considerable control over where they can be sued for patent infringement.
The opinion is also notable for Judge Gilstrap’s commentary on the evolving nature of the American workplace. The judge observed that the key precedent, *In re Cray*, was decided before the COVID-19 pandemic normalized remote work, acknowledging a potential tension between existing law and the current reality of distributed workforces. This judicial aside suggests that courts may be looking for future guidance from higher courts on how to apply patent venue rules in the modern, remote-work era.