Downs v. Security Trust Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• finding that there was personal specific jurisdiction based on the fact that the patent infringement claims related to products that were associated with defendant’s long-standing distribution network in California as well as defendant’s California-based subsidiary
• “[A]s a non-practicing entity that does not even maintain an office in this district with a single full-time employee, GTS’s choice of forum is afforded minimal weight by the Court.”
• “[A]s a non-practicing entity that does not even maintain an office in this district with a single full-time employee, GTS’s choice of forum is afforded minimal weight by the Court.”
• “[T]he lack of any allegedly infringing activity occurring in Virginia that is not also occurring in any other state with a large customer base for electronics” weighs against the plaintiff’s initial choice of forum.
• “[T]he lack of any allegedly infringing activity occurring in Virginia that is not also occurring in any other state with a large customer base for electronics” weighs against the plaintiff’s initial choice of forum.

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).