§Why CasetextPricing

Core Wireless Licensing S.a.r.l. v. Apple, Inc.

RESPONSE in Opposition re MOTION to Change Venue Defendant Apple Inc.'s Motion to Transfer Venue to the Northern District of California

14 Cited authorities

  1. In re Volkswagen of Am.

    545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008)   Cited 1,649 times   16 Legal Analyses
    Holding this prong to be satisfied when "the harm . . . will already have been done by the time the case is tried and appealed, and the prejudice suffered cannot be put back in the bottle"

  2. In re Genentech, Inc.

    566 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 810 times   11 Legal Analyses
    Holding that relevant evidence in patent cases often comes from the accused infringer and may weigh in favor of transfer to that location

  3. In re Hoffmann-La Roche

    587 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 327 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding local interest factor favored transfer where allegedly infringing product was developed in transferee district

  4. Winner Intern. Royalty Corp. v. Wang

    202 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2000)   Cited 153 times
    Holding that "the admission of live testimony on all matters before the Board in a section 146 action, as in this case, makes a factfinder of the district court and requires a de novo trial"

  5. In re Apple Inc.

    456 F. App'x 907 (Fed. Cir. 2012)   Cited 18 times
    Holding that a movant must "meet its burden of demonstrating [] that the transferee venue is 'clearly more convenient.'"

  6. Symbol Technologies v. Metrologic Instruments

    450 F. Supp. 2d 676 (E.D. Tex. 2006)   Cited 23 times
    Holding that the availability of compulsory process in another district does not favor transfer when it is not anticipated that compulsory process will be necessary

  7. Internet Machs. LLC v. Alienware Corp.

    No. 6:10-cv-023 (E.D. Tex. Jun. 7, 2011)   Cited 13 times

    No. 6:10-cv-023 06-07-2011 INTERNET MACHINES LLC, v. ALIENWARE CORP., ET AL. MICHAEL H. SCHNEIDER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER This is a patent infringement case involving Defendants from all over the country, including Texas. Defendants, led by their indemnitor PLX Technology, Inc., move to transfer to the Northern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). After limited venue discovery, Plaintiff has shown that much of the evidence would be more conveniently

  8. Aloft Media, LLC v. YAHOO!, Inc.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:08-CV-509 (E.D. Tex. Jun. 10, 2009)   Cited 6 times
    Recognizing California would be more convenient for witnesses located in Asia

  9. NORMAN IP HOLDINGS, LLC v. CASIO COMPUTER CO., LTD.

    NO. 6:09-cv-270 (E.D. Tex. Oct. 27, 2010)   Cited 4 times

    NO. 6:09-cv-270. October 27, 2010 MEMORANDUM OPINION ORDER JOHN LOVE, Magistrate Judge Before the Court is Defendants Kyocera Corporation, Kyocera Communications, Inc. and Kyocera Wireless Corp. ("Kyocera"), and Sierra Wireless, Inc. and Sierra Wireless America, Inc.'s ("Sierra Wireless") (collectively, "Defendants") motion to dismiss Plaintiff Norman IP Holdings, LLC's ("Norman") Fourth Amended Complaint, or alternatively, to transfer to the Southern District of California (Doc. No. 132). The Court

  10. Bank of America, N.A. v. Malibu Canyon Investors, LLC

    Case No. 2:10-cv-00396-KJD-PAL (D. Nev. Jan. 12, 2012)   Cited 3 times
    Finding appraisal was prepared in anticipation of deficiency action

  11. Section 1404 - Change of venue

    28 U.S.C. § 1404   Cited 29,370 times   192 Legal Analyses
    Granting Class Plaintiffs' motion to transfer action in order to "facilitate a unified settlement approval process together with the class action cases in" In re Amex ASR