Can a Court Reach Patent Eligibility After Dismissing for Improper Venue?
Patent cases often begin with several threshold motions at once. A defendant may argue that the lawsuit was filed in the wrong district while also arguing that the asserted patent is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. If the court agrees that venue is improper, must it stop there?
In AML IP, LLC v. Bath & Body Works Direct, Inc., decided August 28, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said no. A district court had discretion to decide both grounds when they were properly raised, even though either ground independently supported dismissal.
The precedential opinion is primarily about judicial authority and case management. It does not establish a new test for patent eligibility, and it does not decide which district was proper. Its practical importance lies in what patent litigants should expect at the opening stage of a case.
The dispute
AML IP sued Bath & Body Works, The Buckle, and Big Lots in the Eastern District of Texas. It alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,876,979, involving an e-commerce “bridge computer.”
The defendants moved to dismiss on two grounds:
- under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3), because venue was improper; and
- under Rule 12(b)(6), because the asserted claims were patent-ineligible under Section 101.
The district court agreed with both arguments and dismissed the actions. On appeal, AML did not challenge the merits of either the venue ruling or the eligibility ruling. Instead, it argued that once the court found venue improper, it should not have reached eligibility.
The Federal Circuit affirmed
The Federal Circuit rejected that procedural argument. A federal court with jurisdiction over the case can consider multiple properly presented dismissal grounds. Finding improper venue did not strip the district court of power to resolve the concurrently presented Rule 12(b)(6) issue.
The appellate court also concluded that addressing both grounds was within the district court’s discretion. Judicial economy can favor resolving alternative threshold issues together, particularly when doing so may prevent a case from returning through serial appeals.
The court declined AML’s request for an advisory ruling or vacatur based on how the eligibility decision might affect future litigation. Questions about preclusion in a later proceeding would need to be addressed in an actual later case, not prospectively.
What the decision does—and does not—say
AML IP stands for a focused proposition: a court may decide a merits-based dismissal motion alongside a venue motion when both are before it. It does not require every judge to decide both. Trial courts retain case-management discretion, and different procedural records may warrant different sequencing.
The opinion also should not be cited as a substantive endorsement of a new Section 101 rule. Because AML did not challenge the eligibility determination on appeal, the Federal Circuit did not analyze whether the patent claimed an abstract idea or contained an inventive concept. Likewise, it did not revisit the district court’s venue analysis.
Litigation consequences for patent owners
A venue objection may not defer the merits
A patent owner cannot assume that an improper-venue dispute will postpone scrutiny of eligibility. If a defendant raises both issues, the plaintiff may need to defend both at the same time.
The complaint should anticipate Section 101
For patents involving software, data processing, or e-commerce, the complaint should accurately connect the claims to the asserted technological improvement. Factual allegations cannot rewrite the patent, but a well-grounded pleading can help frame what the claims actually do.
Forum selection remains important
The decision does not make venue secondary. Filing in an improper district can still produce dismissal, delay, and additional expense. Before filing, counsel should analyze the statutory patent-venue requirements for each defendant rather than relying on general business contacts.
Alternative rulings can shape strategy
When a court decides two independent grounds, an appeal that challenges only one may leave the other intact. Appellate strategy must identify every ruling necessary to obtain meaningful relief.
Consequences for accused infringers
Defendants may see value in presenting venue and eligibility arguments together, but more is not always better. Each motion should be supported by the record and consistent with the broader defense strategy. A weak threshold argument can distract from a stronger one, increase cost, or educate the plaintiff about later positions.
The timing also matters. Eligibility may be suitable for early resolution when the dispute can be decided from the patent and complaint. Claim construction or factual development may be necessary in other cases.
Early-case planning should be integrated
AML IP reinforces the need to assess procedure and substance together. Before a patent complaint is filed—or before the response is due—the team should evaluate venue, standing, claim construction, eligibility, infringement theories, and the commercial objective of the case.
Tucker Law represents businesses in patent litigation and helps companies align disputes with a broader patent strategy. Early coordination can reduce avoidable procedural detours and focus resources on the issues that matter most.
The bottom line
Under AML IP, a district court does not necessarily have to stop after finding improper venue. It may also resolve a properly presented Section 101 motion, and judicial economy may support doing so.
Patent plaintiffs should be ready for threshold procedural and merits challenges to proceed in parallel. Defendants should decide deliberately which issues to raise and how those rulings could affect later stages. For help assessing a patent dispute, contact Tucker Law.
