IpVenture, Inc. v. Acer, Inc.

11 Citing cases

  1. MGT Gaming, Inc. v. WMS Gaming, Inc.

    978 F. Supp. 2d 647 (S.D. Miss. 2013)   Cited 23 times
    Finding that manufacturers of casino gaming machines, who did not have any relationship with respect to the design, manufacture, or distribution of their respective gaming machines, could not be joined under § 299 because they were direct competitors; and finding that casino operators, who also were not acting in concert, could not be joined under § 299 because they were direct competitors

    WMS and Aruze's status as direct competitors also indicates that joinder would be inappropriate. IpVenture, Inc. v. Acer, Inc., 879 F.Supp.2d 426, 430 (D.Del.2012). As such, they also cannot be joined “jointly” or “severally” under Section 299.

  2. Abbott Labs. v. Roxane Labs., Inc.

    Civil Action No. 12-457-RGA-CJB (D. Del. May. 28, 2013)   Cited 16 times
    Declining to find action first-filed when parties were "in essence the same, and there [would] be significant commonalities of fact and law among the two suits," because "the subject matter of the suits are different enough to render the first-filed rule inapplicable"

    Yet due to the nature of ANDA litigation, it is also a fair inference that this case is more likely to go to trial as compared to other patent cases. See IpVenture, Inc. v.Acer, Inc., 879 F. Supp. 2d 426, 433 (D. Del. 2012) (noting that "numerous ANDA cases . . . go to trial in Delaware"). The record does not contain a great deal of evidence as to the ability of the parties to bear these costs in light of their respective size and financial wherewithal.

  3. Advanced Reimbursement Mgmt., LLC v. Plaisance

    C.A. No. 17-667 (MN) (D. Del. Jun. 17, 2019)   Cited 5 times

    In response, Plaintiff contends that this factor weighs against transfer because "Delaware 'encourages the use by Delaware corporations of Delaware as a forum for the resolution of business disputes.'" (D.I. 38 at 13 (quoting IpVenture, Inc. v. Acer, Inc., 879 F. Supp. 2d 426, 433 (D. Del. 2012))). Given the competing public policies of the two districts, the Court will treat this factor as neutral.

  4. Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Netflix, Inc.

    Civil Action No. 17-1692-JFB-SRF (D. Del. Oct. 12, 2018)

    Realtime's choice of Delaware as a forum weighs in its favor, but not as strongly as it would if Realtime had a place of business in Delaware. See IpVenture, Inc. v. Acer, Inc., 879 F. Supp. 2d 426, 431 (D. Del. 2012); Memory Integrity, LLC v. Intel Corp., C.A. No. 13-1804-GMS, 2015 WL 632026, at *3 (D. Del. Feb. 13, 2015) (concluding that a non-practicing entity's choice of forum should receive limited deference because it had no physical presence in Delaware). Accordingly, Realtime's forum preference weighs slightly against transfer.

  5. Kroy IP Holdings, LLC v. Groupon, Inc.

    Civil Action No. 17-1405-MN-SRF (D. Del. Oct. 9, 2018)

    Kroy's choice of Delaware as a forum weighs in Kroy's favor, but not as strongly as it would if Kroy had a place of business in Delaware. See IpVenture, Inc. v. Acer, Inc., 879 F. Supp. 2d 426, 431 (D. Del. 2012); see also Symantec Corp. v. Zscaler, Inc., C.A. No. 17-806-MAK, D.I. 25 at 3-4 (D. Del. July 31, 2017) (citing Memory Integrity, LLC v. Intel Corp., C.A. No. 13-1804-GMS, 2015 WL 632026, at *3 (D. Del. Feb. 13, 2015) (concluding that a non-practicing entity's choice of forum should receive limited deference because it had no physical presence in Delaware)). Consequently, Kroy's forum preference weighs slightly against transfer.

  6. Universal Secure Registry, LLC v. Apple Inc.

    Civil Action No. 17-585-CFC-SRF (D. Del. Sep. 19, 2018)

    USR's choice of Delaware as a forum weighs in USR's favor, but not as strongly as it would if USR had a place of business in Delaware. See IpVenture, Inc. v. Acer, Inc., 879 F. Supp. 2d 426, 431 (D. Del. 2012); see also Symantec Corp. v. Zscaler, Inc., C.A. No. 17-806-MAK, D.I. 25 at 3-4 (D. Del. July 31, 2017) (citing Memory Integrity, LLC v. Intel Corp., C.A. No. 13-1804-GMS, 2015 WL 632026, at *3 (D. Del. Feb. 13, 2015) (concluding that a non-practicing entity's choice of forum should receive limited deference because it had no physical presence in Delaware)). Consequently, USR's forum preference weighs slightly against transfer.

  7. Collabo Innovations, Inc. v. OmniVision Techs., Inc.

    Civil Action No. 16-197-SLR-SRF (D. Del. Jan. 25, 2017)   Cited 2 times

    Although the added cost of local counsel could make litigation here more expensive than in the proposed transferee court, this added cost weighs only slightly in favor of transfer, and does not outweigh the benefits to be gained by maintaining the co-pending cases together. See Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v. Lattice Semiconductor Corp., 126 F. Supp. 3d 430, 444 (D. Del. 2015) (citing IpVenture, Inc. v. Acer, Inc., 879 F. Supp. 2d 426, 433 (D. Del. 2012); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Checkpoint Software Techs. Ltd., 797 F. Supp. 2d 472, 485 (D. Del. 2011); Affymetrix, Inc. v. Synteni, Inc., 28 F. Supp. 2d 192, 205-06 (D. Del. 1998)). Overall, this factor weighs slightly against transfer.

  8. Papst Licensing GmBh v. Lattice Semiconductor Corp.

    126 F. Supp. 3d 430 (D. Del. 2015)   Cited 34 times
    Noting this prong's concern for “the interests of judicial economy”

    Defendant Altera does note that were the cases litigated in the transferee forum, it would eliminate the cost associated with local counsel in Delaware. (D.I. 12 at 17, Civil Action No. 15–162–LPS–CJB) Our Court has acknowledged this added cost as a practical consideration that could make litigation here more expensive than in a transferee court like the Northern District of California. SeeIpVenture, Inc. v. Acer, Inc., 879 F.Supp.2d 426, 433 (D.Del.2012); Affymetrix, 28 F.Supp.2d at 205–06. Under the circumstances, the Court finds that this added cost should render this factor in favor of transfer, but only slightly.

  9. Ross v. Institutional Longevity Assets LLC

    Civil Action No. 12-102-LPS-CJB (D. Del. Sep. 20, 2013)   Cited 8 times
    Finding that transfer of a case was warranted in part because plaintiffs' filing in this District amounted to "forum shopping"—in that plaintiffs had previously received unfavorable decisions in a related matter in the transferee district prior to filing the instant suit, similar issues to those previously decided in the transferee district were likely to arise in the instant case, and where mirror image litigation was filed in the transferee district just after the filing of the instant case

    Accordingly, the fact that ILA is incorporated in Delaware has little bearing on this factor. See Wacoh Co., 845 F. Supp. 2d at 604 (finding public policy argument to be inapplicable where "the corporation that has chosen Delaware is not a Delaware corporation, and the corporations that might want to claim the benefits of being a Delaware corporation do not want to do so in this case."); cf. IPVenture, Inc. v. Acer, Inc., Civil Action No. 11-588-RGA, 2012 WL 3016958, at *8 (D. Del. July 24, 2012). For these reasons, the Court finds that this factor is neutral.

  10. Round Rock Research LLC v. Asustek Computer Inc.

    967 F. Supp. 2d 969 (D. Del. 2013)   Cited 32 times
    Finding that this factor “at most marginally favors transfer” where twelve inventors of the asserted patents were located near to the transferee district

    SeeRound Rock Research LLC v. Dell, Inc., 904 F.Supp.2d 374 (D.Del.2012). I previously granted transfer to the Northern District of California in a separate case against ASUSTeK and ACI. SeeIpVenture, Inc. v. Acer, Inc., 879 F.Supp.2d 426 (D.Del.2012). The jurisdictional issues were differently presented in that case.