RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II, District Judge.
Plaintiff Percept Technologies brings this patent infringement case against Defendant Fove, Inc., for alleged infringement of a Virtual Reality (VR) headset patent held by Plaintiff. Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, lack of personal jurisdiction, and improper venue. [ECF No. 8]. The Court initially held a hearing on this matter on January 25, 2017, and denied the motion without prejudice, but ordered jurisdictional discovery and supplemental briefing on the issue of jurisdiction. The Court held a jurisdictional hearing on June 20, 2017, and ruled that venue is improper in the District of Nevada, and that the case shall be transferred to the District of Delaware. The factual findings and legal determinations made at that hearing are incorporated by reference, and the Court elaborates its ruling in the instant order.
A. Jurisdictional Facts
Defendant FOVE, Inc. does not have any offices, employees, or land in Nevada. FOVE imported a prototype of its product into Nevada, and used it in a demonstration at the Consumer Electronics Trade Show (CES) in January 2015, held in Las Vegas, Nevada. FOVE also attended CES in January 2016, in Las Vegas, Nevada. FOVE is incorporated in Delaware, and has offices in California and Japan.
III. LEGAL STANDARD
The patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. 1400(b), provides that "[a]ny 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." The word "reside[nce]" in Section 1400(b), as applied to domestic corporations, refers only to the State of Incorporation.
As Defendant is incorporated in the State of Delaware, under the Supreme Court's holding in
However, this misstates the relevant dicta of
Therefore, venue is improper in the District of Nevada.
For the reasons stated above,