443 U.S. 173 (1979) Cited 975 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that while “[t]he question of personal jurisdiction, which goes to the court's power to exercise control over the parties, is typically decided in advance of venue, ... a court may reverse the normal order of considering personal jurisdiction and venue”
Holding en banc that Federal Circuit law governs question of whether patent law conflicts with trade dress action under § 43 of the Lanham Act or preempts such an action under state law
Holding that changes to the general venue statute meant that, in patent cases, corporations reside in every venue where personal jurisdiction is proper
Concluding that there was no "strong precedent" where the precise issue in the case at bar "remained an open question" in the precedent (quoting Curtis Publ'g Co. v. Butts, 388 U.S. 130, 143, 87 S. Ct. 1975, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1094 (1967))
315 U.S. 561 (1942) Cited 163 times 10 Legal Analyses
In Stonite Prods. Co. v. Lloyd Co., 315 U.S. 561 (1942), the Court declared that what is now § 1400(b) is "the exclusive provision controlling venue in patent infringement proceedings."
28 U.S.C. § 1404 Cited 28,851 times 189 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