Personal Privilege: Why Improper Venue Did Not Stop the § 101 Dismissal

by Dennis Crouch

AML IP, LLC v. Bath & Body Works Direct, Inc., No. 2025-1280 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 28, 2026).

This was an odd case - particularly because the appellant (represented by Bill Ramey) decided not to appear at oral arguments.  Those arguments began with a joke about how it might be embarrassing for Lance Wyatt (Fish & Richardson), who represented the successful defendants below, if he lost the appeal. He did not lose.

In a precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit that a district court which has just concluded that venue is improper may go on to dismiss the same complaint on the merits -- in this case holding the claims ineligible.  Judge Prost wrote for a unanimous panel affirming E.D.Tex. Judge Jordan's dismissal on two two independent grounds: improper venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b), and failure to state a claim because the asserted claims of U.S. Patent No. 6,876,979 are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

In the appeal, AML did not contest either ruling on the merits. Its entire appeal was about sequencing.  AML argued that the court should have stopped when it found the case was in the wrong forum.  The stakes here are big. Dismissal for lack of venue is generally without prejudice - allowing the patentee to refile the litigation in a proper forum.  The 101 ruling, on the other hand, is with prejudice and likely entirely ends the litigation campaign.

---

To continue reading, become a Patently-O member. Already a member? Simply log in to access the full post.