29 Cited authorities

Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz
471 U.S. 462 (1985) Cited 16,819 times 46 Legal Analyses
Holding that a defendant has "fair warning" if he purposefully directs his activities at residents of the forum and if the litigation results from alleged injuries arising out of or relating to those activities.
Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc.
465 U.S. 770 (1984) Cited 3,024 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding that, because the defendant was "carrying on a part of its general business" in the state, it was fair to subject the defendant to jurisdiction for a claim arising out of that activity
Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington
326 U.S. 310 (1945) Cited 22,579 times 109 Legal Analyses
Holding that states may exercise personal jurisdiction over out-of-state defendants with "certain minimum contacts with [the forum] such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend ‘traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice’ " (quoting Milliken v. Meyer , 311 U.S. 457, 463, 61 S.Ct. 339, 85 L.Ed. 278 (1940) )
Manuel v. Convergys Corp.
430 F.3d 1132 (11th Cir. 2005) Cited 655 times 4 Legal Analyses
Affirming district court application of Georgia law to determine enforceability of non-compete agreement despite choice-of-law provision requiring application of Ohio law
Diamond Crystal Brands v. Food Movers Intern
593 F.3d 1249 (11th Cir. 2010) Cited 429 times 3 Legal Analyses
Finding specific jurisdiction when the non-forum defendant "purposefully engag[ed] in fourteen such transactions in just six months," thus establishing "a substantial and ongoing relationship with a Georgia manufacturer"
Red Wing Shoe Co. v. Hockerson-Halberstadt
148 F.3d 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998) Cited 510 times 25 Legal Analyses
Holding that a "patentee [does] not subject itself to personal jurisdiction in a forum solely by informing a party who happens to be located there of suspected infringement," as "[grounding personal jurisdiction on such contacts alone would not comport with principles of fairness."
Beverly Hills Fan Co. v. Royal Sovereign Corp.
21 F.3d 1558 (Fed. Cir. 1994) Cited 567 times 13 Legal Analyses
Holding that the forum's interest in discouraging injuries within its territory extends to patent infringement actions
Robinson v. Giarmarco Bill, P.C
74 F.3d 253 (11th Cir. 1996) Cited 508 times
Holding that the long-arm statute extends jurisdiction over a defendant who allegedly caused injury in Florida by negligently drafting and reviewing a will outside of Florida
In re Ricoh Corp.
870 F.2d 570 (11th Cir. 1989) Cited 425 times
Holding that contract's venue selection clause shifted burden to party that brought suit in other venue
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."
Section 1404 - Change of venue
28 U.S.C. § 1404 Cited 28,357 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 1407 - Multidistrict litigation
28 U.S.C. § 1407 Cited 7,054 times 105 Legal Analyses
Authorizing consolidation of pretrial proceedings for related cases filed in multiple federal districts
Section 271 - Infringement of patent
35 U.S.C. § 271 Cited 6,039 times 1047 Legal Analyses
Holding that testing is a "use"
Section 9-10-91 - Grounds for exercise of personal jurisdiction over nonresident
Ga. Code § 9-10-91 Cited 522 times 1 Legal Analyses
Permitting the exercise of Georgia long-arm jurisdiction over a defendant who "[t]ransacts any business within this state"

Sarvint Technologies, Inc. v. OMSignal, Inc.

29 Cited authorities

Holding that a defendant has "fair warning" if he purposefully directs his activities at residents of the forum and if the litigation results from alleged injuries arising out of or relating to those activities.

Holding that, because the defendant was "carrying on a part of its general business" in the state, it was fair to subject the defendant to jurisdiction for a claim arising out of that activity

Affirming district court application of Georgia law to determine enforceability of non-compete agreement despite choice-of-law provision requiring application of Ohio law

Finding specific jurisdiction when the non-forum defendant "purposefully engag[ed] in fourteen such transactions in just six months," thus establishing "a substantial and ongoing relationship with a Georgia manufacturer"

Holding that a "patentee [does] not subject itself to personal jurisdiction in a forum solely by informing a party who happens to be located there of suspected infringement," as "[grounding personal jurisdiction on such contacts alone would not comport with principles of fairness."

Holding that the forum's interest in discouraging injuries within its territory extends to patent infringement actions

Holding that the long-arm statute extends jurisdiction over a defendant who allegedly caused injury in Florida by negligently drafting and reviewing a will outside of Florida

Holding that contract's venue selection clause shifted burden to party that brought suit in other venue

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

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

Authorizing consolidation of pretrial proceedings for related cases filed in multiple federal districts

Holding that testing is a "use"

Permitting the exercise of Georgia long-arm jurisdiction over a defendant who "[t]ransacts any business within this state"