§Why CasetextPricing

TechnoLines, LP et al v. GST AutoLeather, Inc.

MEMORANDUM

20 Cited authorities

  1. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz

    471 U.S. 462 (1985)   Cited 16,804 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.

  2. Helicopteros Nacionales de Colom. v. Hall

    466 U.S. 408 (1984)   Cited 9,262 times   26 Legal Analyses
    Holding that “purchases, even if occurring at regular intervals” were insufficient to establish general personal jurisdiction over a nonresident corporation

  3. Int'l Shoe Co. v. Washington

    326 U.S. 310 (1945)   Cited 22,554 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) )

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. RAR v. TURNER DIESEL

    107 F.3d 1272 (7th Cir. 1997)   Cited 772 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the fact that defendant would not have been performing the task that subjected him to liability but for his previous contacts with plaintiff in Illinois was a loose causal connection that did not provide the basis for personal jurisdiction

  7. Cent. States v. Reimer Express World Corp.

    230 F.3d 934 (7th Cir. 2000)   Cited 487 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that, "[a]t a minimum, the plaintiff must establish a colorable or prima facie showing of personal jurisdiction before discovery should be permitted"

  8. Gciu-Employer v. Goldfarb Corp.

    565 F.3d 1018 (7th Cir. 2009)   Cited 261 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Affirming dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction where defendant surrendered its controlling interest in a subsidiary in the forum months before the sale of the subsidiary gave rise to the lawsuit

  9. VE Holding Corp. v. Johnson Gas Appliance Co.

    917 F.2d 1574 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 341 times   87 Legal Analyses
    Holding that changes to the general venue statute meant that, in patent cases, corporations reside in every venue where personal jurisdiction is proper

  10. In re Microsoft Corp.

    630 F.3d 1361 (Fed. Cir. 2011)   Cited 123 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a transfer was appropriate where the plaintiff incorporated in the chosen forum sixteen days before filing suit

  11. 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 344,855 times   920 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

  12. Section 1331 - Federal question

    28 U.S.C. § 1331   Cited 97,127 times   133 Legal Analyses
    Finding that in order to invoke federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiff's claims must arise "under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States."

  13. Section 1367 - Supplemental jurisdiction

    28 U.S.C. § 1367   Cited 61,551 times   78 Legal Analyses
    Holding that in civil actions proceeding in federal court based solely on diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, the district court "shall not have supplemental jurisdiction" over "claims by plaintiffs against persons made parties under Rule . . . 24" or "over claims by persons . . seeking to intervene as plaintiffs under Rule 24," if "exercising supplemental jurisdiction over such claims would be inconsistent with the jurisdictional requirements of section 1332"

  14. 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

  15. Section 1391 - Venue generally

    28 U.S.C. § 1391   Cited 27,708 times   197 Legal Analyses
    Finding that venue lies where a "substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim" occurred

  16. Section 1338 - Patents, plant variety protection, copyrights, mask works, designs, trademarks, and unfair competition

    28 U.S.C. § 1338   Cited 5,391 times   71 Legal Analyses
    Granting exclusive jurisdiction to the district courts "of any civil action arising under any Act of Congress relating to patents, . . . copyrights and trademarks"

  17. Section 1400 - Patents and copyrights, mask works, and designs

    28 U.S.C. § 1400   Cited 2,149 times   320 Legal Analyses
    Identifying proper venue for copyright and patent suits