Prior to the Supreme Court's decision in TC Heartland, the law of venue in patent infringement actions fluctuated over time. In recent history, the Eastern District of Texas became a notoriously plaintiff-friendly forum in which to litigate patent infringement actions; it was also a widely available choice of forum due to the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's broad reading of the patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). However, the Supreme Court in TC Heartland adopted its earlier interpretation of the patent venue statute that is much narrower than subsequent interpretive expansions.

This Note surveys and categorizes motions to dismiss and motions to transfer on the basis of improper venue in patent infringement actions in the post-TC Heartland era through an overview of applicable law and an analysis of motion outcomes. The Note concludes with an issue-specific explanation of trends in such motion outcomes, suggests that the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit's recent decision to place the burden of proof in these motions on plaintiffs will result in disproportionate victories for defendants, and proposes strategies for plaintiffs to mitigate this burden.