Improper Venue: District Court Rules No Business Presence Through Amazon Warehouse

By Lauryn Bishoff

Recently, the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida dismissed a patent infringement complaint for improper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b). [1] The statute permits patent infringement cases to be filed either in the district where the defendant resides or in a district where the defendant has committed acts of infringement and maintains a regular and established place of business. [2]

In an effort to establish proper venue, the plaintiff argued that the defendant had a “regular and established place of business” in the district due to its use of an Amazon warehouse to store and ship products. The plaintiff claimed that because the defendant paid a “lease fee” to Amazon for use of the warehouse, the defendant effectively exercised control over the facility. The defendant, however, argued that the warehouse belonged to Amazon, not to them, and that venue in the district was therefore improper. They maintained that there was no agency relationship between themselves and Amazon and emphasized that they had no employees at or control over the warehouse. [1]

The court applied the three-prong test set forth by the Federal Circuit in In re Cray Inc., which requires: (1) a physical place; (2) a regular and established place of business; and (3) that the place be the defendant’s. [3] The first prong was satisfied, as the Amazon warehouse is a physical place. However, the second prong failed because the court found that the warehouse did not qualify as a regular and established place of business of the defendant. As for the third prong, the court rejected the plaintiff’s argument that lease payments indicated control or ownership, concluding that the defendant was not using the warehouse as its own place of business. [3]

Accordingly, the court held that merely storing and distributing products through an Amazon warehouse is insufficient to establish venue under § 1400(b) and dismissed the case for improper venue. [1] The court also expressed concern about the broader implications of accepting Amazon warehouses as sufficient for venue, given their widespread presence across the country, emphasizing that the patent venue statute requires a more substantial business presence within the district. [3]

References

[1] CKI 2712218 LLC v. G & L Decor Inc., No. 9:24‑cv‑81447 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 17, 2025).

[2] 28 U.S.C. § 1400 (2023)

[3] Jonathan J. Underwood, Amazon Warehouse Used by Accused Infringer Not a “Regular and Established” Place of Business for Establishing Venue, Akin Gump IP Newsflash (May 30, 2025), https://www.akingump.com/en/insights/blogs/ip-newsflash/amazon-warehouse-used-by-accused-infringer-not-a-regular-and-established-place-of-business-for-establishing-venue