> The Supreme Court held in 1957, in Fourco Glass v. Transmirra Products, that in patent cases, only section 1400 applies, not the more general venue provision

> The Supreme Court held in 1957, in Fourco Glass v. Transmirra Products, that in patent cases, only section 1400 applies, not the more general venue provision in section 1391. That is, until the Federal Circuit determined that subsequent amendments to section 1391 had the effect of making the more general venue provision of section 1391 applicable to patent cases too. What you're leaving out is that the amendment to the relevant part of 1391 was only from: > (c) A corporation may be sued in any judicial district in which it is incorporated or licensed to do business or is doing business, and such judicial district shall be regarded as the residence of such corporation for venue purposes. to: > (c) For purposes of venue under this chapter, a defendant that is a corporation shall be deemed to reside in any judicial district in which it is subject to personal jurisdiction at the time the action is commenced. It seems highly improbable that this minor wording change was intended to affect whether or not it applied to section 1400, and the Federal Circuit didn't find any evidence that Congress intended it to. Thus, even if the original Supreme Court interpretation was 'wrong' from a textualist perspective, the Federal Circuit was still bound by it and should have followed it, rather than using some blustery argument to decide that they could treat the new text "as a matter of first impression" - basically an excuse to "ignore our decision", as Justice Kagan put it. My guess is that the Federal Circuit was just as motivated by policy desires in doing so as you blame the Supreme Court for being; at least, this would fit very neatly into the usual pattern of the Federal Circuit consistently making IP-friendly rulings and the Supreme Court frequently overruling them. As you allude to, 1391 has since been amended further, but again not in a way that suggests Congress intended a functional change wrt this question.