23 Cited authorities

Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno
454 U.S. 235 (1981) Cited 4,833 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that potential change in law cannot, by itself, fend off dismissal under forum non conveniens absent showing that new law is "clearly inadequate or unsatisfactory"
Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert
330 U.S. 501 (1947) Cited 5,655 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that private interest factors include the "availability of compulsory process for attendance of un-willing, and the cost of obtaining attendance of willing, witnesses"
In re Volkswagen of Am.
545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008) Cited 1,645 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"
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
In re TS Tech USA Corp.
551 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2009) Cited 613 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that the district court's refusal to considerably weigh this factor in favor of transfer was erroneous when the witnesses would need to travel approximately 900 more miles to attend trial in Texas than in Ohio
In re Horseshoe Entertainment
337 F.3d 429 (5th Cir. 2003) Cited 570 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that district court abused discretion by not transferring Title VII case under § 1404
In re EMC Corporation
677 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2012) Cited 227 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that Rule 20 "requires shared, overlapping facts that give rise to each cause of action, and not just distinct, albeit coincidentally identical, facts. The sameness of the accused products is not enough to establish that claims of infringement arise from the 'same transaction'"
In re Link-A-Media Devices Corp.
662 F.3d 1221 (Fed. Cir. 2011) Cited 205 times
Reversing a district court that did not consider the factor, stating: "While advances in technology may alter the weight given to these factors, it is improper to ignore them entirely"
Enplanar, Inc. v. Marsh
11 F.3d 1284 (5th Cir. 1994) Cited 195 times
Holding that a contractor did not hold any cognizable property interest in petitioning a procurement agency when the government had retained complete discretion in deciding whether to allow the contractor to petition
Salter v. Upjohn Co.
593 F.2d 649 (5th Cir. 1979) Cited 280 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding that absent " peculiar circumstances" managing agent deposition should occur at defendant corporation's principal place of business
Section 1404 - Change of venue
28 U.S.C. § 1404 Cited 29,238 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
Section 1391 - Venue generally
28 U.S.C. § 1391 Cited 29,110 times 199 Legal Analyses
Finding that venue lies where a "substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim" occurred
Rule 45 - Subpoena
Fed. R. Civ. P. 45 Cited 17,569 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"
Rule 42 - Consolidation; Separate Trials
Fed. R. Civ. P. 42 Cited 9,632 times 24 Legal Analyses
Granting court's authority to consolidate related cases or "issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay."
Rule 21 - Misjoinder and Nonjoinder of Parties
Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 Cited 7,793 times 14 Legal Analyses
Granting district courts broad discretion when deciding whether to sever claims or to dismiss improperly joined claims or defendants
Section 1407 - Multidistrict litigation
28 U.S.C. § 1407 Cited 7,146 times 106 Legal Analyses
Authorizing consolidation of pretrial proceedings for related cases filed in multiple federal districts
Section 292 - False marking
35 U.S.C. § 292 Cited 571 times 64 Legal Analyses
Providing cause of action and share of recovery against a person falsely marking patented articles

GeoTag Inc. v. Circle K Stores, Inc.

23 Cited authorities

Holding that potential change in law cannot, by itself, fend off dismissal under forum non conveniens absent showing that new law is "clearly inadequate or unsatisfactory"

Holding that private interest factors include the "availability of compulsory process for attendance of un-willing, and the cost of obtaining attendance of willing, witnesses"

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"

Holding that relevant evidence in patent cases often comes from the accused infringer and may weigh in favor of transfer to that location

Holding that the district court's refusal to considerably weigh this factor in favor of transfer was erroneous when the witnesses would need to travel approximately 900 more miles to attend trial in Texas than in Ohio

Holding that district court abused discretion by not transferring Title VII case under § 1404

Holding that Rule 20 "requires shared, overlapping facts that give rise to each cause of action, and not just distinct, albeit coincidentally identical, facts. The sameness of the accused products is not enough to establish that claims of infringement arise from the 'same transaction'"

Reversing a district court that did not consider the factor, stating: "While advances in technology may alter the weight given to these factors, it is improper to ignore them entirely"

Holding that a contractor did not hold any cognizable property interest in petitioning a procurement agency when the government had retained complete discretion in deciding whether to allow the contractor to petition

Holding that absent " peculiar circumstances" managing agent deposition should occur at defendant corporation's principal place of business

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

Finding that venue lies where a "substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim" occurred

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"

Granting court's authority to consolidate related cases or "issue any other orders to avoid unnecessary cost or delay."

Granting district courts broad discretion when deciding whether to sever claims or to dismiss improperly joined claims or defendants

Authorizing consolidation of pretrial proceedings for related cases filed in multiple federal districts

Providing cause of action and share of recovery against a person falsely marking patented articles