19 Cited authorities

Van Dusen v. Barrack
376 U.S. 612 (1964) Cited 4,627 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"
In re Volkswagen of Am.
545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008) Cited 1,585 times 13 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 796 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 602 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 Nintendo Co.
589 F.3d 1194 (Fed. Cir. 2009) Cited 273 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"
In re Vistaprint Limited and Officemax Incorporated
628 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2010) Cited 220 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that district court may properly deny § 1404 transfer based on judicial economy even "when all of the convenience factors clearly favor transfer."
In re Volkswagen of America
566 F.3d 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2009) Cited 153 times 2 Legal Analyses
Finding that "judicial economy is served by having the same district court try the cases involving the same patents"
In re EMC Corp.
501 F. App'x 973 (Fed. Cir. 2013) Cited 85 times 1 Legal Analyses
Concluding that a district court may "consider the benefits to judicial economy arising from having the same judge handle both [Plaintiff's] suits against the [Defendant] and [Plaintiff's] suits against other parties involving the same patents and technology as to which there was no issue of transfer."
In re Zimmer Holdings
609 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2010) Cited 72 times 3 Legal Analyses
Finding that transfer of documents to a Texas office space was "recent, ephemeral, and an artifact of litigation," and therefore "entitled to no weight in the court's venue analysis"
ATEN International Co. Ltd. v. Emine Technology Co., Ltd.
261 F.R.D. 112 (E.D. Tex. 2009) Cited 34 times
Finding a foreign manufacturer's FOB shipping term "irrelevant" to the analysis of whether it had purposefully directed its products to Texas through the stream of commerce in a patent infringement case
Section 1404 - Change of venue
28 U.S.C. § 1404 Cited 28,373 times 184 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 27,824 times 197 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 16,547 times 105 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"
Section 1400 - Patents and copyrights, mask works, and designs
28 U.S.C. § 1400 Cited 2,154 times 321 Legal Analyses
Identifying proper venue for copyright and patent suits

Personal Audio, LLC v. Togi Entertainment, Inc.

19 Cited authorities

Holding that a "change of venue under § 1404 generally should be, with respect to state law, but a change of courtrooms"

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 "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"

Holding that district court may properly deny § 1404 transfer based on judicial economy even "when all of the convenience factors clearly favor transfer."

Finding that "judicial economy is served by having the same district court try the cases involving the same patents"

Finding that transfer of documents to a Texas office space was "recent, ephemeral, and an artifact of litigation," and therefore "entitled to no weight in the court's venue analysis"

Finding a foreign manufacturer's FOB shipping term "irrelevant" to the analysis of whether it had purposefully directed its products to Texas through the stream of commerce in a patent infringement case

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"

Identifying proper venue for copyright and patent suits