E.D. Texas· 12/1/2017
Personal Audio, LLC v. Google, Inc.
Citations
- 280 F. Supp. 3d 922
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- concluding that “venue is determined under § 1400(b) by the facts and situation as of the date suit is filed”
- holding that Google’s GGC servers were not regular and established places of business
- holding, because the applicable venue statute used present tense language, “venue facts are to be examined as of the date the suit is filed”
- questioning whether cell phone towers could be a regular and established place of business for wireless phone service providers if Google's servers were to qualify
- rejecting the argument that Google servers in local ISP facilities constituted a regular and established place of business
- “This court concludes that venue is determined under § 1400(b) by the facts and situation as of the date suit is filed. This is the plain reading of § 1400(b), the pertinent provisions of which are written in the present tense.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Clark
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
4 cases in this archive cite this case.
Cites
22 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Neirbo Co. v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp.Supreme Court· 1939-11-22· cited 770×
- Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Products Corp.Supreme Court· 1957-04-29· cited 584×
- Naartex Consulting Corporation, Russell Huff v. James G. Watt, Secretary of InteriorD.C. Circuit· 1983-11-29· cited 490×
- In Re TS Tech USA Corp.Federal Circuit· 2008-12-29· cited 352×
- TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLCSupreme Court· 2017-05-22· cited 302×
- Ve Holding Corporation v. Johnson Gas Appliance CompanyFederal Circuit· 1990-10-24· cited 227×
- Myers v. American Dental Ass'nThird Circuit· 1982-12-10· cited 201×
- In Re: Cray Inc.Federal Circuit· 2017-09-21· cited 195×
- Biodex Corporation v. Loredan Biomedical, Inc.Federal Circuit· 1991-10-03· cited 174×
- Stonite Products Co. v. Melvin Lloyd Co.Supreme Court· 1942-03-09· cited 173×
- Brunette MacHine Works, Ltd. v. Kockum Industries, Inc.Supreme Court· 1972-06-07· cited 171×
- Nobelpharma AB v. Implant Innovations, Inc.Federal Circuit· 1998-03-20· cited 166×
- Schnell v. Peter Eckrich & Sons, Inc.Supreme Court· 1961-02-20· cited 146×
- In Re Cordis CorporationFederal Circuit· 1985-07-10· cited 140×
- Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Co. v. Federal Power CommissionSupreme Court· 1945-04-09· cited 134×
- Cerveceria Centroamericana, S.A. v. Cerveceria India, Inc.Federal Circuit· 1989-12-26· cited 72×
- In Re: Micron Technology, Inc.Federal Circuit· 2017-11-15· cited 70×
- Grantham v. Challenge-Cook Bros.Seventh Circuit· 1969-12-30· cited 48×
- Cordis Corporation v. Cardiac PacemakersFirst Circuit· 1979-06-13· cited 32×
- The Welch Scientific Company v. The Human Engineering Institute, Inc.Seventh Circuit· 1970-01-12· cited 31×
Other cases named Personal Audio, LLC v. Google, Inc.
1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.
Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.