10 Cited authorities

Van Dusen v. Barrack
376 U.S. 612 (1964) Cited 4,620 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 1,575 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 791 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 Hoffmann-La Roche
587 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2009) Cited 321 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding local interest factor favored transfer where allegedly infringing product was developed in transferee district
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 Verizon Business Network Services Inc.
635 F.3d 559 (Fed. Cir. 2011) Cited 28 times
Giving no weight to location of office in transferor forum where plaintiff had no personnel but merely retained documents from prior litigation there
In re Morgan Stanley
417 F. App'x 947 (Fed. Cir. 2011) Cited 18 times 1 Legal Analyses
Discussing In re Zimmer Holdings, Inc. , 609 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2010), and In re Verizon , 635 F.3d 559 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
In re Apple Inc.
374 F. App'x 997 (Fed. Cir. 2010) Cited 7 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"
Section 1404 - Change of venue
28 U.S.C. § 1404 Cited 28,301 times 183 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

Personal Audio, LLC v. Togi Entertainment, Inc.

10 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 local interest factor favored transfer where allegedly infringing product was developed in transferee district

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

Giving no weight to location of office in transferor forum where plaintiff had no personnel but merely retained documents from prior litigation there

Discussing In re Zimmer Holdings, Inc. , 609 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2010), and In re Verizon , 635 F.3d 559 (Fed. Cir. 2011)

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"

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