United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ______________________ WESTECH AEROSOL CORPORATION, Plaintiff-Appellant v. 3M COMPANY, GTA-NHT, INC., DBA NORTHSTAR CHEMICAL, Defendants-Appellees ______________________ 2018-1699 ______________________ Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington in No. 3:17-cv-05067-RBL, Judge Ronald B. Leighton. ______________________ Decided: July 5, 2019 ______________________ MARK P. WALTERS, Lowe Graham Jones PLLC, Seattle, WA, argued for plaintiff-appellant. PRATIK A. SHAH, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP, Washington, DC, argued for defendants-appellees. Also represented by Z.W. JULIUS CHEN, RACHEL J. ELSBY; MICHAEL P. KAHN, MICHAEL NASSER PETEGORSKY, New York, NY. ______________________ Before LOURIE, MAYER, and REYNA, Circuit Judges. 2 WESTECH AEROSOL CORPORATION v. 3M COMPANY REYNA, Circuit Judge. Westech Aerosol Corporation appeals the decision of the United States District Court for the Western District of Washington granting 3M Company and GTA-NHT, Inc.’s motion to dismiss for improper venue. 3M Company and GTA-NHT, Inc. subsequently moved for attorneys’ fees and double costs, arguing Westech Aerosol Corporation filed a frivolous appeal. Because the district court did not err in granting the motion to dismiss, we affirm. We also deny the motion for attorneys’ fees and costs. BACKGROUND On January 27, 2017, Appellant Westech Aerosol Cor- poration (“Westech”) filed suit in the Western District of Washington, alleging that Appellees 3M Company (“3M Co.”) and GTA-NHT, Inc., d/b/a Northstar Chemical (“Northstar”) (collectively, “3M Co.”) infringed U.S. Patent No. 7,705,056 (“the ’056 patent”). 3M moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim, which prompted Westech to file an amended complaint. 3M again moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim. While 3M’s second motion to dismiss was pending, the Supreme Court issued its decision in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, 137 S. Ct. 1514 (2017), holding that for purposes of the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), a corporation “resides” only in its state of incorporation. Id. at 1517. In light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in TC Heartland, 3M moved on May 25, 2017, to amend its pending motion to dismiss to include an argument that venue was improper in the Western District of Washington. The district court granted the motion to amend, and 3M filed an amended motion to dismiss on June 21, 2017, arguing that neither 3M nor Northstar had a regular and established place of business in the judicial district. Westech responded to the amended motion to dismiss by conceding “that its original complaint does not assert WESTECH AEROSOL CORPORATION v. 3M COMPANY 3 facts that support venue in this Court under the guidance of TC Heartland.” J.A. 453. Accordingly, in its response, Westech sought leave to amend its complaint “to assert facts sufficient under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b).” Id. Westech also argued in its response, inter alia, that the presence of sales representatives and 3M’s sales in Washington sup- ported venue in the district and that 3M had a “principal place of business” and other business locations at various addresses in Washington. J.A. 453–54. 3M filed ...
Original document
Source: All recent Immigration Decisions In All the U.S. Courts of Appeals