Monday, February 02, 2009

Housecleaning: ED Tex. Declines Venue in 3 Patent Cases

Yesterday, Patently-O noted that the CAFC's TS Tech decision was beginning to have an impact on venue determinations in the ED Tex.

This morning's Docket Navigator Docket Report discloses that on January 29 and 30, the ED Tex. issued 3 orders declining venue in patent cases:

"Under the circumstances presented here, the convenience of witnesses and localized interests weigh in favor of transfer with the other factors neutral or weighing slightly in favor of transfer. . . . [T]here is little convenience to the parties for this case to remain in Texas, while there are several reasons why it would be more convenient for the parties to litigate this case in Oregon."
- Odom v. Microsoft Corporation, 6-08-cv-00331 (TXED January 30, Order).

"Plaintiff along with six of the seven named defendants have their principal places of business in California; the remaining defendant has its principal place of business in Washington. The original patent owner was also a California-based company. [Plaintiff] alleges direct infringement through the websites of the Defendants, none of which are located in this venue; most are located in California. It is likely that many witnesses for both [plaintiff] and Defendants reside in California and/or Washington, and that many documents related to this case are also located in California. The Court finds that the overall nature of this case, considering all of the involved parties, is
regional and would therefore be more conveniently handled by the Northern District of California."
- PartsRiver, Inc. v. Shopzilla, Inc., 2-07-cv-00440 (TXED January 30, 2009, Order).

"Plaintiff's first-filed patent infringement claim did not permit plaintiff to amend its complaint to seek a declaratory judgment concerning defendant's business torts claims that were previously filed in Missouri. "The original complaint involves claims for patent infringement of [plaintiff's] patent. The amended complaint, and the subject of the Missouri case, is for unfair competition and the Lanham Act based on [plaintiff's] alleged business conduct. The subject matter of these cases do not substantially overlap. The Missouri case, then, is the first filed case for the controversy regarding [plaintiff's] business conduct. [Plaintiff], therefore, violated the first to file rule when it amended its complaint in this action to add counts already asserted in the Missouri case."
- Catalina Marketing Corporation v. LDM Group, LLC, 2-07-cv-00477 (TXED January 29, 2009, Order)

See Also: The Metropolitan Corporate Counsel, "The Eastern District Of Texas - No Longer The Venue Of Choice?" (link) - discussion of TS Tech, including interview withe TS Tech's counsel.

Seja o primeiro a comentar

DISCLAIMER

This Blog/Web Site ("Blog") is for educational purposes only and is not legal advice. Use of the Blog does not create any attorney-client relationship between you and Peter Zura or his firm. Persons requiring legal advice should contact a licensed attorney in your state. Any comment posted on the Blog can be read by any Blog visitor; do not post confidential or sensitive information. Any links from another site to the Blog are beyond the control of Peter Zura and does not convey his, or his past or present employer(s) approval, support, endorsement or any relationship to any site or organization.

The 271 Patent Blog © 2008. Template by Dicas Blogger.

TOPO