Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Checkpoint Software Technologies Ltd.

How courts have described this case

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

• finding this factor to slightly favor transfer, where the cost of local counsel in Delaware was the only consideration raised by the parties, and where the parties seemed financially capable of bearing the added expense
• “Nevertheless, as this Court has repeatedly recognized, ‘recent technological advances have reduced the weight of this factor to virtually nothing.’”
• “Nevertheless, as this Court has repeatedly recognized, ‘recent technological advances have reduced the weight of this factor to virtually nothing.’”
• “When transfer is sought by a defendant with operations on a national or international scale, that defendant must prove that litigating in Delaware would pose a unique or unusual burden on [its] operations.”
• acknowledging the “fact-specific, case-by-case nature of a [transfer] decision”
• finding other 1404(a) factors neutral

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Cited by

3 cases in this archive cite this case.

• Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v. Lattice Semiconductor Corp.
  D. Delaware· 2015-09-01· cited 30×
• Zazzali v. Swenson
  D. Delaware· 2012-03-27· cited 14×
• Sprint Communications, L.P. v. Cox Communications, Inc.
  D. Kansas· 2012-09-14· cited 4×

Cites

16 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

• Stewart Organization, Inc. v. Ricoh Corp.
  Supreme Court· 1988-06-20· cited 3,025×
• George Jumara and Evangelina Jumara, H/w v. State Farm Insurance Company
  Third Circuit· 1995-06-02· cited 1,215×
• Shutte v. Armco Steel Corp.
  Third Circuit· 1970-08-14· cited 584×
• In Re TS Tech USA Corp.
  Federal Circuit· 2008-12-29· cited 352×
• In Re Genentech, Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2009-07-09· cited 337×
• In Re Hoffmann-La Roche Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2009-12-02· cited 184×
• Micron Technology, Inc. v. Rambus Inc.
  Federal Circuit· 2011-05-13· cited 142×
• In Re Microsoft Corp.
  Federal Circuit· 2011-01-05· cited 87×
• Affymetrix, Inc. v. Synteni, Inc.
  D. Delaware· 1998-11-18· cited 86×
• Waste Distillation Technology, Inc. v. Pan American Resources, Inc.
  D. Delaware· 1991-10-10· cited 48×
• TriStrata Technology, Inc. v. Emulgen Laboratories, Inc.
  D. Delaware· 2008-02-25· cited 40×
• ADE CORP. v. KLA-Tencor Corp.
  D. Delaware· 2001-04-10· cited 36×
• Mallinckrodt, Inc. v. EZ-EM INC.
  D. Delaware· 2009-11-20· cited 30×
• Intel Corp. v. Broadcom Corp.
  D. Delaware· 2001-10-09· cited 25×
• L'Athene, Inc. v. EARTHSPRING LLC
  D. Delaware· 2008-08-07· cited 24×
• Nihon Tsushin Kabushiki Kaisha v. Davidson
  D. Delaware· 2009-02-03· cited 6×