Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

President and Fellows of Harvard College v. Micron Technology, Inc.

United States District Court, D. Massachusetts

August 30, 2017

PRESIDENT AND FELLOWS OF HARVARD COLLEGE, Plaintiff,
v.
MICRON TECHNOLOGY, INC., Defendant.

          MEMORANDUM & ORDER

          WILLIAM G. YOUNG, DISTRICT JUDGE.

         I. INTRODUCTION

         President and Fellows of Harvard College (“Harvard”) has brought this action against Micron Technology, Inc. (“Micron”), alleging that Micron infringed two of Harvard's patents. Micron previously filed a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, which this Court granted without prejudice. Harvard then filed an amended complaint. About five months later, the Supreme Court issued its decision in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, 137 S.Ct. 1514 (2017), affirming its previous opinion regarding where a corporate defendant resides for venue purposes in patent infringement actions. Micron now moves to dismiss Harvard's amended complaint for improper venue, arguing that TC Heartland constituted a change in the law that ought be given retroactive effect. Harvard opposes, arguing that because TC Heartland merely reaffirmed a previous Supreme Court holding, the decision is not intervening law sufficient to preclude Micron's waiver of its venue challenge. Because TC Heartland has resulted in a deluge of similar motions in other patent cases, this Court takes the opportunity to explain its reasoning for denying Micron's motion to dismiss.

         A. Procedural History

         Harvard initially filed a complaint against Micron on June 24, 2016. Compl., ECF No. 1. Micron responded on August 15, 2016, moving to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. Micron's Mot. Dismiss Compl., ECF No. 19. After an oral hearing, the Court granted this motion on October 13, 2016, giving Harvard thirty days to file a motion for leave to file an amended complaint. Electronic Clerk's Notes, ECF No. 33.

         On November 14, 2016, Harvard moved for leave to file an amended complaint, Pl.'s Mot. Leave File Am. Compl., ECF No. 35, which Micron opposed, Def. Micron's Opp'n Pl.'s Mot. Leave File Am. Compl., ECF No. 39. On January 30, 2017, this Court granted Harvard leave to file its amended complaint. Mem. and Order, ECF No. 49. Harvard filed its amended complaint that same day. Am. Compl., ECF No. 50.

         On February 10, 2017, Micron filed a motion to stay the action, pending inter partes reviews by the United States Patent and Trademark Office of the patents at issue in this case. Def. Micron's Mot. Stay, ECF No. 54. On February 27, 2017, Micron answered Harvard's amended complaint. Micron's Answer Harvard's Am. Compl., ECF No. 58. On March 20, 2017, Micron filed an amended answer and counterclaim to Harvard's amended complaint. Micron's First Am. Answer Harvard's Am. Compl., ECF No. 69.

         On March 30, 2017, this Court held a motion hearing regarding Micron's motion to stay. Electronic Clerk's Notes, ECF No. 71. At that time, Micron withdrew the motion to stay and the Court held a scheduling conference, putting the case on the running trial list for April 2018. Id. The following day, Harvard filed an answer to Micron's counterclaim. Harvard's Answer Countercl. Micron, ECF No. 70.

         On May 31, 2017, Micron filed a supplemental notice of request for inter partes review. Def. Micron's Suppl. Notice Req. Inter Partes Review, ECF No. 80.

         On June 2, 2017, Micron filed the instant motion to dismiss for improper venue. Micron's Rule 12(b)(3) Mot. Dismiss Improper Venue, ECF No. 83. The parties fully briefed the issues. Pl.'s Opp'n Def. Micron's Rule 12(b)(3) Mot. Dismiss Improper Venue (“Pl.'s Opp'n”), ECF No. 86; Pl.'s Sur-Reply Opp'n Def. Micron's Rule 12(b)(3) Mot. Dismiss Improper Venue (“Pl.'s Sur-Reply”), ECF No. 93; Def. Micron's Mem. Law Supp. Rule 12(b)(3) Mot. Dismiss Improper Venue (“Def.'s Mem.”), ECF No. 84; Def. Micron's Reply Supp. Mot. Dismiss Improper Venue (“Def.'s Reply”), ECF No. 89. After hearing oral arguments on July 24, 2017, this Court took the matter under advisement. Electronic Clerk's Notes, ECF No. 96.

         B. Background

         Harvard is chartered by and has its principal place of business in the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Am. Compl. ¶ 1. Micron is incorporated in Delaware and has its principal place of business in Idaho. Id. ¶ 2; Def.'s Mem. 1. Harvard has sued Micron under the patent laws of the United States, Am. Compl. ¶ 3, alleging that Micron has committed acts of patent infringement within the Commonwealth, id. ¶ 4. Harvard has alleged that venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. sections 1391(b) and 1400. Id. ¶ 5.

         II. ANALYSIS

         Micron argues this Court ought dismiss Harvard's amended complaint due to improper venue, Def.'s Mem. 5-6, because Micron has not waived this argument, id. at 6-7. Harvard responds that ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.