Invivo Research, Inc. v. Magnetic Resonance Equipment Corp.

How courts have described this case

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

• citing, inter alia, Orb Factory, Ltd. v. Design Sci. Toys, Ltd., 6 F. Supp. 2d 203, 208 (S.D.N.Y. 1998)
• granting motion to transfer where “the sole connection between th[e] action and the Southern District of New York [was] the sale of a minute percentage of the accused products and the location of plaintiffs counsel” which gave the selection of the forum an “artificial quality”
• “[T]he convenience of counsel is not an appropriate factor to consider [in deciding whether to transfer a case].”
• “It is the court in which the first-filed action was brought that should decide whether an exception to the first-filed rule applies.”
• “Where a party’s products are sold in many states, sales alone are insufficient to establish a material connection to the forum and to override other factors favoring transfer.” (internal quotation marks omitted

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).