Goe v. Commissioner of Probation

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that defendants’ showing that a Canadian court could adjudicate intellectual property disputes “demonstrates nothing more than the unremarkable proposition that the Federal Court of Canada has jurisdiction over Canadian intellectual property disputes”
• holding that Canada was not an adequate alternative forum where “[t]he only evidence appellees submitted to the district court was a printout of a webpage from the site of the Federal Court of Canada”
• “It is largely for this reason that district courts have routinely denied motions to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds when United States intellectual property rights form the crux of the dispute.”
• “It cannot be assumed that a foreign court would adjudicate an intellectual property dispute where the alleged infringement occurred elsewhere, and the case otherwise has little or no connection to the chosen forum.”
• “Territoriality is always of concern in intellectual property disputes. It cannot be assumed that a foreign court would adjudicate an intellectual property dispute where the alleged infringement occurred elsewhere, and the case otherwise has little or no connection to the chosen forum.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).