10 Cited authorities

  1. Van Dusen v. Barrack

    376 U.S. 612 (1964)   Cited 4,137 times   6 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 1,232 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the Piper Aircraft factors “are not necessarily exhaustive or exclusive”
  3. In re Genentech, Inc.

    566 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 595 times   9 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
  4. In re TS Tech USA Corp.

    551 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 427 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
  5. In re Hoffmann-La Roche

    587 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 221 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding local interest factor favored transfer where allegedly infringing product was developed in transferee district
  6. In re Vistaprint Limited and Officemax Incorporated

    628 F.3d 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 102 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."
  7. In re Verizon Business Network Services Inc.

    635 F.3d 559 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 25 times
    Noting that where more than five years had lapsed between lawsuits, transfer to a district that heard a previous suit on the same patent may not necessarily serve interests of judicial economy
  8. In re Morgan Stanley

    417 F. App'x 947 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 13 times   1 Legal Analyses

    Misc. Nos. 962, 964, 967. April 6, 2011. On Petition for Writ of Mandamus to the United States District Court, for the Eastern District of Texas in case nos. 09-CV-0326, 09-CV-0327, 6:09-CV-00333, Leonard Davis, Judge. Daniel A. Devito, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher, New York, NY, David W. Hansen, Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher, Palo Alto, CA, for Petitioners. Dirk D. Thomas, McKool Smith, P.C., Washington, DC, for Respondent. Before RADER, Chief Judge, NEWMAN and BRYSON, Circuit Judges. ON PETITION

  9. In re Apple Inc.

    374 F. App'x 997 (Fed. Cir. 2010)   Cited 5 times
    Holding that the plaintiff's status as a Texas corporation was not entitled to significant weight, as its presence in Texas appeared "to be both recent and ephemeral"
  10. Section 1404 - Change of venue

    28 U.S.C. § 1404   Cited 24,508 times   149 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