First: Yes, i misspoke, because i forgot this was TC heartland, which was the venue case. My brain appears to have melted this morning. Oh well. Second: Pers

First: Yes, i misspoke, because i forgot this was TC heartland, which was the venue case. My brain appears to have melted this morning. Oh well. Second: Personal jurisdiction is also waivable Subject matter jurisdiction is not. In any case, the number i gave is actually the number where venue arguments have not been waived. There are about 400 where they have probably waived the venue argument, but have no real jurisdiction argument. Third, yes, the statute in question is the patent venue statute. However, you can't disconnect it that easily from personal jurisdiction, since the entire case was about the meaning of "“shall be deemed to reside, if a defendant, in any judicial district in which such defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to the civil action in question" It just turns out they already decided the jurisdiction part of that in previous holdings, and decided this venue statute did not really modify the general venue statute, which did not modify the definition of personal jurisdiction they decided before that, .. As for the transfers/dismissals, that part is also correct. See https://patentlyo.com/lawjournal/2017/03/imminent-outpouring-district.html https://patentlyo.com/lawjournal/2017/03/imminent-outpouring... So yes, less fundamental, but in these cases, venue and jurisdiction will now mostly be the same again (IE minimum contacts, etc)