Amazon Warehouse Used by Accused Infringer Not a “Regular and Established” Place of Business for Establishing Venue

May 30, 2025

Reading Time : 2 min

A district court recently dismissed a patent infringement complaint for improper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), finding that the storage and distribution of products from an Amazon warehouse was not sufficient to establish that warehouse as a regular and established place of business in the district.

The plaintiff sought to establish venue based on the e-commerce defendant’s “regular and established” business in the district under § 1400(b). Specifically, the plaintiff argued that the defendant’s use of Amazon warehouses in the district to store and ship its products to customers with a high level of efficiency showed that the warehouses were regular and established places of business. The plaintiff also argued that the warehouses should be deemed places of the defendant because the defendant contracted with Amazon and paid a “lease fee” for use of Amazon warehouses.

The court determined that venue was improper under the three-prong test of In re Cray. First, the court found that the first prong was met because there was no dispute that the Amazon warehouses were physical places. However, for the second prong, the court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that the warehouses were regular and established places of business for the defendant. The court explained that because the defendant lacked any employees at the warehouses, the plaintiff needed to show an agency relationship between the defendant and Amazon. The court found that the plaintiff had failed to show that Amazon acted at the defendant’s direction, nor had the plaintiff shown that the defendant had rights to control any activity at the warehouse. The court explained that storing products and facilitating distribution were insufficient to show control of activity at the warehouse. Finally, for the third prong of Cray, the court rejected the argument that the defendant had established or ratified the warehouses as places of business through making lease payments. On the contrary, the court explained that the defendant did not lease the warehouse to use as its own place, so the defendant had not established a place of business. Similarly, for ratification, the court found that the defendant’s and Amazon’s relationship was more akin to an authorized retailer, and that the lease fee was more like a contract to distribute than a lease of a physical location to do business.

In concluding its analysis, the court also recognized the potential far-reaching impact of finding venue based on the defendant’s use of an Amazon warehouse, particularly in view of the Amazon warehouses throughout the country. The court noted that the patent venue statute requires a stronger showing of localized business activities and presence within a given district.

Practice Tip: In patent infringement cases involving e-commerce and the use of third-party warehousing, venue is not necessarily established where the accused infringer’s products are stored at the third-party’s warehouse to facilitate the distribution of those products to customers in the district. Patentees and accused infringers should carefully consider whose employees work at the warehouse and whether there is evidence of an agency relationship between the accused infringer and the warehouse operator. Furthermore, patentees and accused infringers should carefully consider how the warehouse space is used and who controls it.

CKI 2712218 LLC v. G&L Decor Inc., 9:24-cv-81447, D.I. 25 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 17, 2025)

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

May 30, 2025

A district court recently dismissed a patent infringement complaint for improper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), finding that the storage and distribution of products from an Amazon warehouse was not sufficient to establish that warehouse as a regular and established place of business in the district.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 27, 2025

The Federal Circuit affirmed a District of Delaware finding of non-infringement in an ANDA litigation due to the patentee’s clear and unmistakable disavowal of claim scope during prosecution. Specifically, the court held that statements made during prosecution of a parent application before the asserted claims were allowed amounted to a prosecution disclaimer that extended to subsequent patents in the family. In reaching this conclusion, the court rejected an attempt by the patentee to resurrect the claim scope through a unilateral, self-serving statement made in later applications in the family.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 13, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently affirmed a district court’s holding that patent term extension (PTE) for a reissued patent was properly based on the issue date of the original patent and not that of the reissued patent. The Federal Circuit concluded that, where both the original and reissued patents claimed a drug product under regulatory review, using the issue date of the original patent to calculate PTE comports with both the purpose of the Hatch-Waxman Act and the related statutory context.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 12, 2025

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently declined to institute a petition for IPR that was filed on the same day that the petitioner filed another petition challenging the same claims of the same patent. The board was not persuaded by petitioner’s arguments that a second petition was needed due to alleged claim construction issues or the number, length or scope differences of the challenged claims.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 9, 2025

The USPTO Director vacated the board’s decision to institute inter partes review based on an erroneous application of the Fintiv factors. Specifically, the Director found that the board placed too much emphasis on Petitioner’s Sotera stipulation, and not enough emphasis on the investment in the parallel litigation. Weighing the factors as a whole, the Director determined that institution should be denied.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

May 9, 2025

In an institution decision following the USPTO’s withdrawal of its Fintiv Memo, the board addressed discretionary denial of an IPR under Fintiv in view of a parallel ITC investigation. The board noted it would not consider the now-rescinded June 2022 memo from then-director Vidal which instructed that the PTAB would not deny institution of an IPR or PGR under Fintiv when the request is based on a parallel ITC investigation. The board conducted a Fintiv analysis in view of the ITC investigation, but ultimately determined that discretionary denial was not warranted in this particular situation.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 23, 2025

The Federal Circuit recently refused to apply collateral estoppel to claims of a patent asserted in district court litigation based on a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision finding similar claims from the same patent unpatentable because the PTAB applied a lower burden of proof than what is required to invalidate claims in district court.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

April 7, 2025

The Central District of California denied a defendant’s motion to dismiss or transfer plaintiff’s first-filed declaratory judgment action based on defendant’s later-filed patent infringement suit in Wisconsin.  Though suit was seemingly imminent when defendant advised plaintiff it might be infringing defendant’s patents, plaintiff responded by requesting a licensing agreement in lieu of litigation. The court found that plaintiff’s action was not anticipatory forum-shopping litigation because plaintiff only filed suit after defendant neglected to respond to its licensing offer.

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.