Whether an atextual 'foreign defendant' exception exists to 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b)

QUESTION PRESENTED This patent infringement case squarely presents a question acknowledged by the Court but left unanswered in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Grp. Brands LEC, 137 S. Ct. 1514 (2017) (Heartland’): whether an _ atextual “foreign defendant” exception exists to 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), even though the statute, by its terms, provides for venue in “[a]ny civil action for patent infringement,” and thus, on its face, provides “the sole and exclusive provision controlling venue in patent infringement actions.” Heartland, 137 S. Ct. at 1519 and 1520 n.2. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit supposed that such an atextual “foreign defendant” venue exception existed, refused to apply the plain language of § 1400(b), and instead applied 28 U.S.C. § 1891, which, as this Court has held, “governs ‘venue generally,’ [but does not apply] in cases where a more specific venue provision” exists, citing, specifically, § 1400 (which “identif[ies] proper venue for copyright and patent suits.”) Atl. Marine Constr. Co. v. U.S. Dist. Court for W. Dist. of Texas, 571 U.S. 49, 56 n.2 (2013). The court reached that conclusion without “analyzing the statutory language [or] enforce[ing the] plain and unambiguous statutory language according to its terms.” Hardt v. Reliance Standard Life Ins., 560 U.S. 242, 251 (2010) (citation omitted). As explained below, that was plain error.