In Re TS Tech USA Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• 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
• holding that nationwide sales gave the citizens of plaintiff’s chosen forum “no more or less of a meaningful connection to this case than any other venue”
• noting that “[n]one of the companies have an office in the Eastern District of Texas; no identified witnesses reside in the Eastern District of Texas; and no evidence is located within the venue”
• noting that mandamus may be granted to direct transfer when 4 IN RE: HP INC. the denial was a clear abuse of discretion such that refus- ing transfer produced a patently erroneous result
• applying the regional circuit’s procedural law because the petition did not involve substantive issues of patent law
• applying the regional circuit’s procedural law because the petition did not involve substantive issues of patent law

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

65 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 Hoffmann-La Roche Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2009-12-02· cited 184×
• In Re EMC Corporation
  Federal Circuit· 2012-05-04· cited 143×
• In Re Acer America Corp.
  Federal Circuit· 2010-12-03· cited 142×
• Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.
  Federal Circuit· 2013-08-23· cited 113×
• In Re Nintendo Co., Ltd.
  Federal Circuit· 2009-12-17· cited 103×
• Touchcom, Inc. v. Bereskin & Parr
  Federal Circuit· 2009-08-03· cited 94×
• In Re Microsoft Corp.
  Federal Circuit· 2011-01-05· cited 87×
• Aldana v. Del Monte Fresh Produce N.A., Inc.
  Eleventh Circuit· 2009-08-13· cited 84×
• In Re Volkswagen of America, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2009-05-22· cited 64×
• Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Altera Corp.
  D. Delaware· 2012-01-24· cited 59×
• In re HTC Corp.
  Federal Circuit· 2018-05-09· cited 55×
• Inre: Toyota Motor Corporation
  Federal Circuit· 2014-04-03· cited 45×
• Zurich American Insurance v. Tejas Concrete & Materials Inc.
  W.D. Texas· 2013-11-06· cited 38×
• In Re GOOGLE LLC
  Federal Circuit· 2023-02-01· cited 37×
• 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×
• Graphics Properties Holdings Inc. v. Asus Computer International, Inc.
  D. Delaware· 2013-06-28· cited 28×
• Round Rock Research LLC v. Asustek Computer Inc.
  D. Delaware· 2013-08-20· cited 24×

Cites

11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Mallard v. United States Dist. Court for Southern Dist. of Iowa
  Supreme Court· 1989-05-01· cited 4,814×
• Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno
  Supreme Court· 1982-01-25· cited 4,581×
• Cheney v. United States District Court for District of Columbia
  Supreme Court· 2004-06-24· cited 1,878×
• 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×
• In Re Volkswagen Ag Volkswagen of America, Inc.
  Fifth Circuit· 2004-05-18· cited 1,445×
• In Re Calmar, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 1988-08-09· cited 196×
• In Re: Horseshoe
  Fifth Circuit· 2003-07-31· cited 167×
• In Re: National Presto Industries, Inc.
  Seventh Circuit· 2003-10-21· cited 142×
• Broussard v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.
  Fifth Circuit· 2008-04-07· cited 96×
• In re Pruett
  Fourth Circuit· 1997-12-31· cited 25×