§Why CasetextPricing

SimpleAir, Inc. v. AWS Convergence Technologies, Inc. et al

RESPONSE to Motion re Joint MOTION to Change Venue Defendants' Joint Motion to Transfer Venue Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 1404

8 Cited authorities

  1. In re Volkswagen of Am.

    545 F.3d 304 (5th Cir. 2008)   Cited 1,645 times   15 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 Genentech, Inc.

    566 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 810 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

  3. In re TS Tech USA Corp.

    551 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 613 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

  4. In re Hoffmann-La Roche

    587 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2009)   Cited 327 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding local interest factor favored transfer where allegedly infringing product was developed in transferee district

  5. 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

  6. Mediostream, Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:08CV369 (E.D. Tex. Sep. 30, 2009)   Cited 1 times

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 2:08CV369. September 30, 2009 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER CHARLES EVERINGHAM IV, Magistrate Judge In these consolidated cases, the defendants in Case No. 2:07CV376 have filed a motion for leave to file a surreply in support of certain defendants' motion for reconsideration (#232); the defendants in Case No. 2:07CV376 have also filed a motion for reconsideration (#206) of the court's order denying the motion to transfer venue; and, in Case No. 2:08CV369, Microsoft Corporation ("Microsoft")

  7. Emanuel v. SPX Corporation

    Civil Action No. 6:09cv220 (E.D. Tex. Sep. 18, 2009)   Cited 1 times

    Civil Action No. 6:09cv220. September 18, 2009 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER JOHN LOVE, Magistrate Judge Before the Court is Defendant SPX Corporation's ("SPX") Motion to Transfer Venue to the District of Minnesota ("Motion") (Doc. No. 16) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Plaintiff Cedric R. Emanuel d/b/a Just Wheels ("Just Wheels") has filed a Response to Defendant's Motion to Transfer Venue ("Response") (Doc. No. 32), and Defendant also filed a Reply Brief in Support of the Motion to Transfer Venue

  8. Motiva LLC v. Nintendo Co LTD

    CASE NO. 6:08 CV 429, PATENT CASE (E.D. Tex. Jun. 30, 2009)   Cited 1 times

    CASE NO. 6:08 CV 429, PATENT CASE. June 30, 2009 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER LEONARD DAVIS, District Judge Before the Court is Nintendo of America, Inc. ("Nintendo America") and Nintendo Co. Ltd.'s ("Nintendo Co.") (collectively "Defendants") motion to transfer venue (Docket No. 17). After consideration of the parties' briefing, Defendants' motion is DENIED. BACKGROUND On November 10, 2008, Motiva, LLC ("Motiva") filed this action alleging that Defendants infringe U.S. Patent No. 7,292,151 (the