In Re Hoffmann-La Roche Inc.

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that “the sale of an accused product offered nationwide does not give rise to a substantial interest in any single venue”
• observing that “sale of an accused product offered nationwide does not give rise to a substantial interest in any single venue’
• stating that infringement of an accused product offered nationwide does not allow for any venue to claim a substantial interest
• observing that “sale of an accused product offered nationwide does not give rise to a substantial interest in any single venue’
• noting that local interest is strong where “the cause of action calls into question the work and reputation of several individuals residing in or near that district”
• noting that the “cause of action calls into question the work and reputation of several individuals residing in or near that district and who presumably conduct business in that community”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

33 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

• In Re Vistaprint Limited
  Federal Circuit· 2010-12-15· cited 189×
• In Re EMC Corporation
  Federal Circuit· 2012-05-04· cited 143×
• In Re Acer America Corp.
  Federal Circuit· 2010-12-03· cited 142×
• In Re Apple, Inc.
  Eighth Circuit· 2010-04-19· cited 130×
• In Re Nintendo Co., Ltd.
  Federal Circuit· 2009-12-17· cited 103×
• In Re Microsoft Corp.
  Federal Circuit· 2011-01-05· cited 87×
• In Re Nintendo of America, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2014-06-25· cited 76×
• Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Altera Corp.
  D. Delaware· 2012-01-24· cited 59×
• Smart Audio Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc.
  D. Delaware· 2012-11-16· cited 57×
• In Re Zimmer Holdings, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2010-06-24· cited 35×
• Frito-Lay North America, Inc. v. Medallion Foods, Inc.
  E.D. Texas· 2012-03-30· cited 35×
• Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Checkpoint Software Technologies Ltd.
  D. Delaware· 2011-06-22· cited 32×
• Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v. Lattice Semiconductor Corp.
  D. Delaware· 2015-09-01· cited 30×
• Graphics Properties Holdings Inc. v. Asus Computer International, Inc.
  D. Delaware· 2013-06-28· cited 28×
• Children's Network, LLC v. PIXFUSION LLC
  S.D. New York· 2010-06-30· cited 20×
• Sirius Computer Solutions, Inc. v. Sparks
  W.D. Texas· 2015-10-05· cited 18×
• MGT Gaming, Inc. v. WMS Gaming, Inc.
  S.D. Mississippi· 2013-10-23· cited 11×
• Adaptix, Inc. v. HTC Corp.
  E.D. Texas· 2013-03-28· cited 9×
• Optimum Power Solutions LLC v. Apple, Inc.
  E.D. Texas· 2011-02-22· cited 8×
• Watson v. Fieldwood Energy Offshore, LLC
  S.D. Texas· 2016-02-01· cited 8×

Cites

8 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno
  Supreme Court· 1982-01-25· cited 4,581×
• Van Dusen v. Barrack
  Supreme Court· 1964-03-30· cited 3,077×
• Stewart Organization, Inc. v. Ricoh Corp.
  Supreme Court· 1988-06-20· cited 3,025×
• In re Volkswagen of America, Inc.
  Fifth Circuit· 2008-10-10· cited 1,830×
• Allied Chemical Corp. v. Daiflon, Inc.
  Supreme Court· 1980-11-17· cited 1,679×
• Continental Grain Co. v. Barge FBL-585
  Supreme Court· 1960-06-27· cited 711×
• In Re TS Tech USA Corp.
  Federal Circuit· 2008-12-29· cited 352×
• In Re Genentech, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2009-07-09· cited 337×