12 Cited authorities

  1. In re Volkswagen of Am.

    545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008)   Cited 1,601 times   14 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"
  2. In re Volkswagen AG

    371 F.3d 201 (5th Cir. 2004)   Cited 1,384 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that it is reversible error for the district court to consider the convenience of counsel
  3. In re Genentech, Inc.

    566 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 803 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
  4. In re TS Tech USA Corp.

    551 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 604 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 Horseshoe Entertainment

    337 F.3d 429 (5th Cir. 2003)   Cited 565 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that district court abused discretion by not transferring Title VII case under § 1404
  6. Hous. Trial Reports, Inc. v. LRP Publ'ns, Inc.

    85 F. Supp. 2d 663 (S.D. Tex. 1999)   Cited 64 times

    No. Civ.A. H-99-0781. August 31, 1999. George R. Neely, Houston, TX, for Plaintiffs. William Wesley Ogden, Jr., Ogden Gibson White and Broocks, Houston, TX, Joseph D Wargo, Jeanine L Gibbs, Altman Kritzer et al., Atlanta, GA, Michael S. French, Altman Kirtzer et al., Atlanta, GA, for Defendants. MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ROSENTHAL, District Judge. Plaintiffs, Houston Trial Reports, Inc. and Blue Sheet Publications, Inc., are Texas corporations located in Harris County, Texas. (Docket Entry No. 1, Ex.

  7. 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
  8. Fujitsu Limited v. Tellabs, Inc.

    CASE NO. 6:08 CV 22 PATENT CASE (E.D. Tex. Jul. 7, 2009)

    CASE NO. 6:08 CV 22 PATENT CASE. July 7, 2009 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER LEONARD DAVIS, District Judge Before the Court is Tellabs, Inc. ("Tellabs") and Tellabs Operations, Inc.'s ("Tellabs Operation" and collectively "Defendants") motion to transfer venue to the Northern District of Illinois (Docket No. 55). After review of the parties' briefing the Court GRANTS Defendants' motion and transfers this case to Chief Judge James F. Holderman of the Northern District of Illinois. BACKGROUND On January

  9. Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 12   Cited 350,278 times   937 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
  10. Section 1404 - Change of venue

    28 U.S.C. § 1404   Cited 28,632 times   188 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
  11. Section 1391 - Venue generally

    28 U.S.C. § 1391   Cited 28,216 times   198 Legal Analyses
    Finding that venue lies where a "substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim" occurred
  12. Section 1400 - Patents and copyrights, mask works, and designs

    28 U.S.C. § 1400   Cited 2,178 times   321 Legal Analyses
    Identifying proper venue for copyright and patent suits