As we reported last week, the Supreme Court will hear oral arguments in the TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC case on Monday March 27.  In that previous report, we covered the background of the case, and presented the positions of both sides of the issue.  Ultimately, this case should boil down to a straight statutory interpretation involving the interplay of the specific patent venue statute with the general venue statute found in the same chapter.  Nevertheless, as we previously mentioned, around 30 amicus briefs were filed in this case, whether in support of petitioner TC Heartland, in support of respondent Kraft Foods Group, or in support of neither party.  And while these briefs provided some discussion of statutory construction, the overwhelming majority of ink was spent explaining why public policy dictates a specific outcome, with the fate of U.S. patent law hanging in the balance.  While we can maintain the somewhat naïve impression that the Supreme Court is not influenced by these public policy arguments for a statutory construction case, it is interesting (and perhaps useful) to look at some of the positions proffered in these briefs.  To that end, we provide a review of the arguments advanced by at least 98 self-identified professors that signed onto three different amicus briefs.

…

Mark A. Lemley of Stanford Law School was counsel of record on an amici curiae brief filed on behalf of 61 professors of law and economics advocating a narrow interpretation of the patent venue statute.  This brief allocates a few pages as to why the patent venue statute should be construed narrowly.  Basically, the Supreme Court interpreted the patent venue statute in Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Products Corp., 353 U.S. 222 (1957), and nothing has changed to disturb that ruling.