미국 연방대법원 TC Heartland 판결 이후 미국 특허침해소송 재판적 법리의 전개양상 : 연방순회항소법원 HTC 판결, ZTE 판결, BigCommerce 판결을 중심으로

The Supreme Court's TC Heartland decision, in the interpretation of “resides” in Section 1400(b) of the judiciary and judical procedure law, had adopted a new legal principle that limits the scope of venue in the patent infringement lawsuit in the U.S. The TC Heartland decision was intended to address forum shopping which was prevalent in patent infringement lawsuits in the U.S. at the time, and to deter patent trolls from abusing their rights. After the TC Heartland decision, a variety of legal issues have been raised regarding the venue of patent infringement lawsuits. Therefore the CAFC has set the criteria for determining the recognition of “regular and established place of business” as prescribed by the Section 1400(b) in Cray decision, has decided a foreign corporation may be sued for patent infringement in any district in HTC decision, if venue is challenged, plaintiff holds the burden of proving proper venue in ZTE decision, and an entity incorporated in a state with multiple judicial jurisdiction does not resided in each jurisdiction for venue purposes in BigCommerce decision. These decisions can be evaluated as the product of the CAFC which practised the purpose of the TC Heartland decision in a judicial manner.