Charles Evans Whittaker

“ The main thrust of respondents' argument is that § 1391 (c) is clear and unambiguous and that its terms include all actions including patent infringement actions-against corporations, and, therefore, that the statute should be read with, and as supplementing, § 1400 (b) in patent infringement actions. That argument is not persuasive, as it merely points up the question and does nothing to answer it. For it will be seen that § 1400 (b) is equally clear and, also, that it deals specially and specifically with venue in patent infringement actions. ”

“ 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.'
Petitioner, Fourco Glass Company, a West Virginia corporation, was sued for patent infringement in the Southern District of New York. It moved to dismiss for lack of venue, [1] because, although it had a regularly established place of business in the district of suit, there was no showing that it had committed any of the alleged acts of infringement there. ”

“ Mere changes of phraseology indicate no intent to work a change of meaning but merely an effort to state in clear and simpler terms the original meaning of the statute revised.' Professor James William Moore of Yale University, a special consultant on this revision, stated that: 'Venue provisions have not been altered by the revision.' Hearings before Subcommittee No. ”