§Why CasetextPricing

GEOTAG, INC. v. YAKIRA, L.L.C. et al

RESPONSE in Opposition re Joint MOTION to Stay

10 Cited authorities

  1. Kerotest Mfg. Co. v. C-O-Two Co.

    342 U.S. 180 (1952)   Cited 1,148 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Upholding stay

  2. Cadle Co. v. Whataburger of Alice, Inc.

    174 F.3d 599 (5th Cir. 1999)   Cited 355 times
    Holding that, under the first-to-file rule, "the court in which an action is first filed is the appropriate court to determine whether subsequently filed cases involving substantially similar issues should proceed"

  3. Save Power Ltd. v. Syntek Fin. Corp.

    121 F.3d 947 (5th Cir. 1997)   Cited 319 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "complete identity of parties is not required for dismissal or transfer of a case filed subsequently to a substantially related action."

  4. Genentech, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co.

    998 F.2d 931 (Fed. Cir. 1993)   Cited 336 times
    Holding that "the forum of the first-filed case is favored" and that such deference to the first-filed case may not be set aside absent a "sound reason that would make it unjust or inefficient to continue the first-filed action"

  5. Soverain Software LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.

    356 F. Supp. 2d 660 (E.D. Tex. 2005)   Cited 130 times
    Denying stay

  6. Kahn v. General Motors Corp.

    889 F.2d 1078 (Fed. Cir. 1989)   Cited 159 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a "transfer is inappropriate when it merely serves to shift inconveniences from one party to the other."

  7. Katz v. Lear Siegler, Inc.

    909 F.2d 1459 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 147 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that appeal of the joinder of two defendants was inextricably intertwined with appeal of an injunction prohibiting suit against the defendants in another jurisdiction because the latter appeal involved factors pertinent to the former

  8. Tegic Communications v. Univ. of Tx. Sys

    458 F.3d 1335 (Fed. Cir. 2006)   Cited 63 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Concluding that "it would not be demonstrably more efficient to stay" first-filed suits in favor of a manufacturer's later-filed suit when the patent-owner argued that the manufacturer was "not the only source of the software used in the phones alleged to infringe"

  9. Southwire Company v. Cerro Wire, Inc.

    750 F. Supp. 2d 775 (E.D. Tex. 2010)   Cited 2 times
    Granting stay

  10. Air Products and Chemicals v. MG Nitrogen Services Inc.

    133 F. Supp. 2d 354 (D. Del. 2001)   Cited 8 times

    Civil Action No. 00-457-SLR February 28, 2001 MEMORANDUM ORDER SUE ROBINSON, United States District Judge. At Wilmington this 28th day of February, 2001, IT IS ORDERED that defendant's motion to dismiss or, alternatively, to stay or transfer the case (D.I. 18) is granted in part and denied in part. The case shall be transferred to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas — Houston Division for the reasons that follow: 1. Plaintiff Air Products and Chemicals, Inc. ("Air