id	author	title	date	pages	extension	mime	words	sentence	flesch	summary	cache	txt
inlawrev-26101	Carter, R. Trevor; Hayden, Leslie B.; Dodge, Reid E.	Developments in Intellectual Property Law: October 1, 2019 -- September 30, 2020	2022	41	.pdf	application/pdf	17171	1063	66	although not before the court, she noted that dictionary and usage evidence might have supported a proper conclusion by the USPTO that the entire “booking.com” mark was generic.159 V. VENUE IN PATENT LITIGATION (SECOND TIME IS THE CHARM AS FEDERAL CIRCUIT FINDS NO VENUE IN THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS FOR GOOGLE SERVER RACKS): IN RE GOOGLE LLC In February 2020, the Federal Circuit granted Google’s petition for writ of mandamus to resolve district courts’ conflicting applications of the patent venue statute.160 Although the Federal Circuit had denied Google’s previous writ of mandamus, filed more than one year before the instant writ, district courts had reached different conclusions on the patent venue statute in the interim, warranting the grant of the instant petition.161 Elaborating further on the requirements for venue articulated in In re Cray, Inc.,1 6 2 the Court held that the required “place” of business need only be a physical location in the district and the defendant need not own or lease any real property to meet this requirement.163 There must also be an employee or agent of the defendant conducting the defendant’s business in the district.164 Applied to this case, the server racks Google used to cache local Google data constituted a “place” under the Cray test, but the ISPs who installed Google’s servers, provided internet access, and performed maintenance tasks on the server racks were not Google’s agents.165 Further, agents performing maintenance activities alone do not qualify as carrying out the regular business of the defendant.166 Thus, venue was not appropriate in the Eastern District of Texas.167 A. Patent Venue and Service Background 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 159. The venue provision gave district courts original jurisdiction over patent disputes where the defendant was an inhabitant of the district or had committed acts of infringement and had “a regular and established place of business” in the district.206 Where the defendant is not an inhabitant of the district but has a “regular and established place of business,” service of process may be completed by serving the agents “engaged in conducting such business.	cache/inlawrev-26101.pdf	txt/inlawrev-26101.txt