The Court ruled unanimously in favor of the petitioner, upholding its 1957 decision that patent infringement cases must be heard in the district within which the defendant is incorporated.

§ 1391(c)(2), stating that for a corporation, its place of residence is "in any judicial district in which such defendant is subject to the court’s personal jurisdiction with respect to the civil action in question".

This determination had been most recently affirmed in a 1990 case VE Holding Corporation v. Johnson Gas Appliance Company in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

These entities file suit against other companies for patent infringement, typically as means to coerce settlement prior to trial or anticipating a victory in the district court of their choosing.

TC Heartland sought to change the venue to the Southern District of Indiana, citing the Supreme Court decision in Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Products Corp. 353 U.S. 222–226 (1957) that for purposes of patent infringement suits, a corporation "resides" in the state within which it was incorporated.

§ 1391[3] since the decision of Fourco clarified how to determine where a company resides and that past cases at the District and Appeals Court have relied on this interpretation.

[4] TC Heartland filed a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court in September 2016, specifically addressing whether the interpretation of "resides" in 28 U.S.C.

Supporting TC Heartland via amicus briefs included a number of computer, technology, banking, and retail companies such as Apple, eBay, IBM, Microsoft, Intel, and Walmart that sought to eliminate the means that their patents are challenged by non-practicing entities, as well as seventeen states.

[5] Amicus briefs in opposition to TC Heartland included a number of pharmaceutical companies, including Allergan, Merck, and Genentech, who stated the ability to decide the venue helped to fend themselves against generic drug manufacturers, and older companies like Ericsson and Whirlpool which have thousands of patents in their portfolio and having the choice of venue making it easy for them to deal with large number of patent infractions in a single location.

The Federal Circuit applied the Supreme Court's reasoning to reverse Gilstrap's ruling and allowed Cray's motion to transfer the case to proceed.

Coupled with the TC Heartland ruling, this decision was seen to prevent further attempts by plaintiffs to forum shop for a desired court.