6. How should substantiality be determined under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2)? What approach did the Batescourt take? When applying the substantiality requirement under the pre-2012 version of the federal venue statute, the circuits generally disagreed on whether to look only at defendant’s activities or to take a “holistic approach” that considers both plaintiff’s activities and the nexus between intra-district activities and the claim. See Daniel v.

American Bd. of Emergency Med., 428 F.3d 408 (2d Cir. 2005). Does a defendant-only approach better promote the statutory goal of protecting a defendant against an inconvenient or unfair place of trial? Does it run the risk of conflating the statutory test for venue with the constitutional test for personal jurisdiction? Does it take account of the judicial system’s interest in avoiding inconvenient litigation?