Where Patent Cases Are Heard: Venue, Transfer, and the ITC

Common situations.

• A Delaware corporation with an office in Plano is sued in Marshall.
• A foreign manufacturer with no U.S. office is sued in Texas.
• A defendant sued in Waco wants the case moved to California, where its engineers work.
• A patent owner wants to stop infringing imports quickly.

Federal court only.

Federal district courts have exclusive jurisdiction over claims arising under the patent laws (28 U.S.C. § 1338(a)). Appeals go to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (§ 1295(a)(1)). A state-law claim that merely involves a patent question, such as legal malpractice in a patent case, can stay in state court (Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251 (2013)).

Venue against U.S. companies.

A patent infringement suit may be brought only where the defendant resides, or where it has committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business (28 U.S.C. § 1400(b)).

• Residence. A domestic corporation resides only in its state of incorporation (TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Grp. Brands LLC, 581 U.S. 258 (2017)). In a state with more than one district, it resides only in the district where it has its principal place of business or, failing that, its registered office (In re BigCommerce, Inc., 890 F.3d 978 (Fed. Cir. 2018)).
• Regular and established place of business. There must be a physical place in the district, it must be regular and established, and it must be the defendant's own place rather than an employee's (In re Cray Inc., 871 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2017)). A server or equipment in the district does not qualify without an employee or agent conducting the defendant's business there (In re Google LLC, 949 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2020)).
• Generic drug cases. In a suit over an abbreviated new drug application, infringement occurs only where acts related to submitting the application took place (Valeant Pharms. N. Am. LLC v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., 978 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2020)).

Venue against foreign companies and in declaratory judgment cases.

• A foreign defendant may be sued in any district (In re HTC Corp., 889 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). This is one reason many suits against foreign manufacturers are filed in Texas.
• Section 1400(b) applies only to infringement suits. A declaratory judgment suit by an accused infringer is governed by the general venue statute (§ 1391), and personal jurisdiction over the patent owner becomes the main limit.

Transfer for convenience.

A court may transfer a case to another district where it could have been brought, for the convenience of parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice (28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)). The Federal Circuit applies the law of the regional circuit, so Fifth Circuit law governs transfer motions in Texas. The movant must show that the other district is clearly more convenient (In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008) (en banc)). The Fifth Circuit has since stressed that statistics on time to trial carry little weight (In re TikTok, Inc., 85 F.4th 352 (5th Cir. 2023)) and has granted mandamus to reverse a transfer it found unsupported (In re Clarke, No. 24-50079 (5th Cir. Mar. 1, 2024)).

Transfer motions are usually decided early. A denied motion can be challenged by a petition for mandamus to the Federal Circuit, which has granted many such petitions from Texas courts over the past decade.

Texas courts and their patent dockets.

Lex Machina counted 4,547 patent cases filed nationwide in 2025, including 1,245 in the Eastern District of Texas and 531 in the Western District of Texas. Together, those two districts received about 39 percent of new patent cases.

• Eastern District of Texas. Most patent cases are filed in the Marshall Division before Chief Judge Rodney Gilstrap. The district has detailed local patent rules. See Local Patent Rules in Texas Federal Courts.
• Western District of Texas. Since a July 25, 2022 order, patent cases filed in the Waco Division are assigned at random across the district rather than to the Waco judge alone. Judge Alan Albright, who drew most of the district's patent cases before that order, resigned effective August 31, 2026. Judge Christopher Wolfe, confirmed to the Waco Division on April 14, 2026, now presides there. How the Waco docket will be managed going forward is not yet settled. See Waco Patent Docket After Judge Albright's Departure.
• Northern and Southern Districts of Texas. Both have local patent rules and hear fewer patent cases, often involving companies based in Dallas, Fort Worth, or Houston.

The International Trade Commission.

Section 337 of the Tariff Act lets a patent owner ask the ITC to bar imports of infringing products (19 U.S.C. § 1337). Key features:

• Domestic industry. The complainant must show a U.S. industry relating to the patented articles. The Federal Circuit held in 2025 that sales, marketing, warehousing, quality control, and distribution expenses can count toward the economic part of this test (Lashify, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n (Fed. Cir. Mar. 5, 2025)).
• Remedies. Exclusion orders, enforced by U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and cease-and-desist orders. The ITC does not award damages.
• Speed and reach. Investigations generally run faster than district court cases, and the ITC acts against the imported goods regardless of venue limits.
• Presidential review. An exclusion order becomes final after a 60-day review period in which the President, through the U.S. Trade Representative, may disapprove it for policy reasons (§ 1337(j)).
• Parallel district court case. A respondent may require a stay of a district court case involving the same issues, if it asks in time (28 U.S.C. § 1659).

Sources.

• 28 U.S.C. §§ 1295(a)(1), 1338(a), 1391, 1400(b), 1404(a), 1659.
• 19 U.S.C. § 1337.
• Gunn v. Minton, 568 U.S. 251 (2013).
• TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Grp. Brands LLC, 581 U.S. 258 (2017).
• In re Cray Inc., 871 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
• In re Google LLC, 949 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
• Valeant Pharms. N. Am. LLC v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., 978 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2020).
• In re HTC Corp., 889 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
• In re Volkswagen of Am., Inc., 545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008) (en banc).
• In re TikTok, Inc., 85 F.4th 352 (5th Cir. 2023).
• In re Clarke, No. 24-50079 (5th Cir. Mar. 1, 2024).
• Lashify, Inc. v. Int'l Trade Comm'n (Fed. Cir. Mar. 5, 2025).
• W.D. Tex. order assigning Waco Division patent cases (July 25, 2022).
• In re BigCommerce, Inc., 890 F.3d 978 (Fed. Cir. 2018).
• Lex Machina, Patent Litigation Report (2026).
• Senate confirmation of Christopher Wolfe, W.D. Tex. (Apr. 14, 2026).

This guide is general information, not legal advice. Law checked through October 20, 2026. See the Disclaimer.