October 2017 LACBA MCLE Test and Answer Sheet

Test No. 271: Heart of the Matter

To access the article related to this test, please click here.
  
Instructions for Obtaining MCLE Credit

The Los Angeles County Bar Association certifies that this activity has been approved for Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit by the State Bar of California in the amount of 1 hour. To apply for credit, please follow the instructions.

1. Study the CLE article.

2. Answer the test questions by marking the appropriate boxes. Each question has only one answer.

3. Photocopies of this answer sheet may be submitted; however, this form should not be enlarged or reduced. Mail the answer sheet and the $20 testing fee ($25 for non-LACBA members) to:

Los Angeles Lawyer
MCLE Test
P.O. Box 55020
Los Angeles, CA 90055

Make checks payable to Los Angeles Lawyer.

4. You can also fill in the test form and submit it directly to LACBA by clicking "Submit." To submit your test answers online you will need to pay by credit card. After submitting your answers you will be presented with a screen requesting payment information. This information will be submitted in a secure mode which will allow you to safely transmit your credit card number over the Internet. If you prefer not to pay by credit card, please print this answer sheet and submit your responses by regular mail.

5. Within six weeks, Los Angeles Lawyer will return your test with the correct answers, a rationale for the correct answers, and a certificate verifying the CLE credit you earned through this self-study activity.

6. For future reference, please retain the CLE test materials returned to you.


 

Test Sheet
 



  
Mark your answers to the test by clicking next to your choice.  All questions must be answered.  Each question has only one answer. This test is worth 1 hour of credit.*

1. Venue is proper in a patent infringement case if the case is brought in federal court in a state where a corporate defendant is incorporated..


2. In TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods Group Brands, LLC, the U.S. Supreme Court outlined a four-factor test to determine whether a defendant has a “regular and established place of business” in a state.


3. The Federal Circuit, in VE Holding Corporation v. Johnson Gas Appliance Co., held that venue was proper in a patent infringement case in any judicial district in which the defendant was subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction.


4. A plaintiff in a patent infringement case has an automatic right to obtain discovery relating to venue.


5. Under the TC Heartland holding venue is automatically established in a district where the defendant sells an infringing product.


6. In In re Cordis Corporation the Federal Circuit held that the appropriate inquiry as to a “regular and established place of business” is whether the corporate defendant conducts business in that district through a permanent, continuous presence there and not whether it has a fixed physical presence.


7. In 1942, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Stonite Products Co. v. Melvin Lloyd Co. that the patent venue statute was not the exclusive venue provision for patent infringement suits.


8. In 1957, the U.S. Supreme Court held in Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Products Corporation that the patent venue statute was not altered by the general venue statute, which includes language stating that it applies to “all actions.”


9. In TC Heartland, the U.S. Supreme Court held that venue is proper in a patent infringement case only in a judicial district in the state in which the defendant is incorporated or where the defendant committed acts of infringement and has a regular and established place of business.


10. Following TC Heartland, U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap identified four factors courts should consider in determining whether the defendant has a regular and established place of business in the district.


11. One of Judge Gilstrap’s factors is whether a defendant has a physical presence in the district.


12. One of Judge Gilstrap’s factors is the extent to which the defendant derives benefits from its presence in the district.


13. One of Judge Gilstrap’s factors is whether the defendant has been sued previously in that district.


14. One of Judge Gilstrap’s factors is the extent to which a defendant interacts in a targeted way with existing or potential customers, consumers, users, or entities within a district.


15. One of Judge Gilstrap’s factors is the extent to which a defendant represents, internally or externally, that it has a presence in the district.


16. One of Judge Gilstrap’s factors is wheth­er the de­fendant is incorporated in the dis­trict.


17. Corporations or other entities that are potential targets of patent infringement cases that want to make it more difficult to be sued in a parti­­cular state should consider minimiz­ing their conduct in that state.


18. A plaintiff can establish venue in a patent in­fringe­ment case by proving the defendant has a regular and established place of business in that district.


19. Courts have taken a uniform approach in deter­mining what constitutes a regular and established place of business for patent venue purposes.


20. Judge Gilstrap has been criticized for setting venue rules for patent cases in a way that may keep many cases in his district.

 


Before clicking the Submit button, please verify that all questions have been answered. An error message will appear if not all questions are answered.

* The Los Angeles County Bar Association has been approved as a continuing legal education provider of Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit by the State Bar of California. This self-assessment activity will qualify for Minimum Continuing Legal Education credit by the State Bar of California in the amount of one hour.