Google beats patent lawsuit with venue argument

In a victory for defendants sued for patent infringement, a federal appellate panel ruled Alphabet Inc.-owned Google LLC could not be sued in the Eastern District of Texas merely because it had servers in the district and served consumers there.

Super Interconnect Technologies LLC sued Google in 2018, arguing the Mountain View-based company sued three of its patents. The company argued venue was proper in the Eastern District of Texas because Google did business on servers that were hosted at Internet service providers there. No Google employees worked on the site.

Judge Timothy B. Dyk of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concluded the maintenance of the servers "cannot, standing alone, be considered the conduct of Google's business."

"We conclude that the Eastern District of Texas was not a proper venue because Google lacked a 'regular and established place of business' within the district since it has no employee or agent regularly conducting its business at its alleged "place of business" within the district," Dyk concluded. In re: Google LLC, 2019-126 (Fed. Cir., filed Feb. 13, 2020).

Dyk directed the Eastern District of Texas judge to dismiss the lawsuit or transfer it to another jurisdiction.

The Federal Circuit decision is the latest court ruling offering guidance to litigants over venue requirements in patent infringement lawsuits. Recent court rulings and laws have limited the once-expansive scope plaintiffs enjoyed when suing because a product was simply sold in the Eastern District of Texas, a popular plaintiff's venue.

Thomas P. Schmidt of Hogan Lovells argued for Google on the appeal. He could not be reached for comment.

Jeffrey R. Bragalone of Bragalone Conroy PC said he and his client were disappointed by the ruling, "as it adds a new and unwarranted requirement of 'employees' or 'agents' to the patent venue statute," he wrote.

The attorney said he has not yet decided whether to seek en banc review of the Federal Circuit panel's decision.

-- Craig Anderson