§Why CasetextPricing

Eolas Technologies Incorporated v. Adobe Systems Incorporated et al

MOTION to Change Venue to the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1404

21 Cited authorities

  1. Van Dusen v. Barrack

    376 U.S. 612 (1964)   Cited 4,692 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a "change of venue under § 1404 generally should be, with respect to state law, but a change of courtrooms"

  2. In re Volkswagen of Am.

    545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008)   Cited 1,630 times   15 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"

  3. Hoffman v. Blaski

    363 U.S. 335 (1960)   Cited 1,380 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the language of 28 U.S.C. § 1404 —which permits the transfer of "any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought "—unambiguously means at the time the lawsuit was filed

  4. In re Genentech, Inc.

    566 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 808 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

  5. In re Hoffmann-La Roche

    587 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 326 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding local interest factor favored transfer where allegedly infringing product was developed in transferee district

  6. In re Nintendo Co.

    589 F.3d 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 275 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "in a case featuring most witnesses and evidence closer to the transferee venue with few or no convenience factors favoring the venue chosen by the plaintiff, the trial court should grant a motion to transfer"

  7. Eolas Technologies Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.

    399 F.3d 1325 (Fed. Cir. 2005)   Cited 89 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Finding that a single prior use invalidates both system and method claims

  8. Liaw Su Teng v. Skaarup Shipping Corp.

    743 F.2d 1140 (5th Cir. 1984)   Cited 71 times
    Holding that federal courts should entertain maritime matters involving suits by crew members against employers or the vessels aboard which crew members are employed

  9. MyMail, Ltd. v. America Online, Inc.

    223 F.R.D. 455 (E.D. Tex. 2004)   Cited 32 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Finding joinder proper under Rule 20 but concluding "[w]hen discovery is complete, the Court, upon motion of a party, will determine whether the state of the evidence compels severance of some type under Rule 21"

  10. Balthasar Online, Inc. v. Network Sols., Llc.

    654 F. Supp. 2d 546 (E.D. Tex. 2009)   Cited 9 times

    Civil Action No. 2:08-CV-430. September 15, 2009 Christopher J. Renk, Michael J. Harris, Thomas K. Pratt, and Timothy C. Meece of Banner Witcoff LTD, for Nike, Inc. ORDER DAVID FOLSOM, District Judge Before the Court is the California Defendants' Motion to Transfer Venue. Dkt. No. 168. Also before the Court are Balthasar's Response (Dkt. No. 206), California Defendants' Reply (Dkt. No. 239) and California Defendants' Notice of Supplemental Authority (Dkt. No. 271). The Court heard oral argument on

  11. Section 1404 - Change of venue

    28 U.S.C. § 1404   Cited 29,059 times   191 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

  12. Section 1391 - Venue generally

    28 U.S.C. § 1391   Cited 28,849 times   199 Legal Analyses
    Finding that venue lies where a "substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim" occurred

  13. Rule 45 - Subpoena

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 45   Cited 17,363 times   112 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a subpoena may command a person to attend a trial, hearing, or deposition "within 100 miles of where the person resides, is employed, or regularly transacts business in person"

  14. Rule 20 - Permissive Joinder of Parties

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 20   Cited 11,678 times   22 Legal Analyses
    Granting courts authority to "issue orders-including an order for separate trials."

  15. Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,123 times   477 Legal Analyses
    Holding the party seeking invalidity must prove "the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains."

  16. Section 102 - Conditions for patentability; novelty

    35 U.S.C. § 102   Cited 5,988 times   998 Legal Analyses
    Prohibiting the grant of a patent to one who "did not himself invent the subject matter sought to be patented"

  17. Section 1400 - Patents and copyrights, mask works, and designs

    28 U.S.C. § 1400   Cited 2,192 times   321 Legal Analyses
    Identifying proper venue for copyright and patent suits