In re Apple Inc.

18 Citing cases

  1. USTA Tech. v. Google LLC

    No. W-22-CA-01214-XR (W.D. Tex. Jul. 26, 2023)   Cited 1 times

    The Federal Circuit “accord[s] significant to the location where the accused product or functionality was ‘designed, developed, and tested'” and “no weight to the location of the sale of an accused product where that product is offered nationwide.” In re Apple Inc., 979 F.3d at 1345 (citing In re Hoffmann-La Roche Inc., 587 F.3d at 1338); see also In re Apple Inc., No. 2022-137, 2022 WL 1676400, at *2 (Fed. Cir. May 26, 2022) (holding it is a “clear abuse of discretion” to grant any weight to a company's general presence in the district without “a connection to the locus of the events giving rise to the dispute”).

  2. Parus Holdings Inc. v. Google, LLC

    6:21-cv-0571-ADA (W.D. Tex. Nov. 29, 2022)

    For example, the Federal Circuit recently attributed error to this Court for granting even some weight to Apple's significant general presence in this District. In re Apple Inc., No. 2022-137, 2022 WL 1676400, at *2 (Fed. Cir. May 26, 2022) (“The court's reliance on [the defendant's Austin] offices, which lack such a connection to the locus of the events giving rise to the dispute, amounts to a clear abuse of discretion.”).

  3. Universal Connectivity Techs. v. HP Inc.

    1:23-CV-1177-RP (W.D. Tex. Jul. 3, 2024)   Cited 2 times

    See WirelessWerx, No. 6:22-cv-01056-RP (Order, Dkt. 49, at 9) (noting that the location of a company's headquarters generally has a “greater local interest in cases” than the location of its smaller satellite office); XR Commc'ns, 2022 WL 3702271, at *9 (“Google has a general presence in this District, but this Court would clearly abuse its discretion in according any weight to it.”); In re Apple Inc., No. 2022-137, 2022 WL 1676400, at *2 (Fed. Cir. May 26, 2022) (“The court's reliance on [in-district] offices, which lack such a connection to the locus of the events giving rise to the dispute, amounts to a clear abuse of discretion.”).

  4. iCharts LLC v. Tableau Software, LLC

    1:23-CV-1225-DII (W.D. Tex. May. 21, 2024)   Cited 1 times

    It is true that Tableau has employees in Austin, but the record indicates that none of Tableau's Austin employees “had any involvement in the research, design, or development of the accused technology.” See In re Apple Inc., No. 2022-137, 2022 WL 1676400, at *2 (Fed. Cir. May 26, 2022). Even if some Tableau employees must travel from Washington to testify at the trial, it will be far more convenient for them to travel to NDCA than to travel to WDTX.

  5. Marble VOIP Partners LLC v. Ringcentral Inc.

    No. W-22-CV-00259-ADA (W.D. Tex. May. 31, 2023)

    As the Federal Circuit has explained, when a party is located in the EDTX, it does not give this District a comparable local interest. In re Apple, Inc., No. 2022-137, 2022 WL 1676400, at *2 (Fed. Cir. May 26, 2022). Thus, Marble's presence in Texas does not weigh against transfer under this factor.

  6. Greenthread, LLC v. Intel Corp.

    6:22-CV-105-ADA (W.D. Tex. Dec. 21, 2022)

    For example, the Federal Circuit recently attributed error to this Court for granting even some weight to Apple's significant general presence in this District. In re Apple Inc., No. 2022-137, 2022 WL 1676400, at *2 (Fed. Cir. May 26, 2022) (“The court's reliance on [the defendant's Austin] offices, which lack such a connection to the locus of the events giving rise to the dispute, amounts to a clear abuse of discretion”).

  7. Viasat, Inc. v. W. Dig. Techs. Corp.

    6:21-CV-01230-ADA (W.D. Tex. Dec. 12, 2022)   Cited 1 times

    For example, the Federal Circuit recently attributed error to this Court for granting even some weight to Apple's significant general presence in this District. In re Apple Inc., No. 2022-137, 2022 WL 1676400, at *2 (Fed. Cir. May 26, 2022) (“The court's reliance on [the defendant's Austin] offices, which lack such a connection to the locus of the events giving rise to the dispute, amounts to a clear abuse of discretion”).

  8. Parus Holdings Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.

    6:21-CV-00570-ADA (W.D. Tex. Nov. 29, 2022)

    For example, the Federal Circuit recently attributed error to this Court for granting even some weight to Apple's significant general presence in this District. In re Apple Inc., No. 2022-137, 2022 WL 1676400, at *2 (Fed. Cir. May 26, 2022) (“The court's reliance on [the defendant's Austin] offices, which lack such a connection to the locus of the events giving rise to the dispute, amounts to a clear abuse of discretion”).

  9. Parus Holdings Inc. v. Apple Inc.

    6:21-CV-00968-ADA (W.D. Tex. Nov. 29, 2022)

    For example, the Federal Circuit recently attributed error to this Court for granting even some weight to Apple's significant general presence in this District. In re Apple Inc., No. 2022-137, 2022 WL 1676400, at *2 (Fed. Cir. May 26, 2022) (“The court's reliance on [the defendant's Austin] offices, which lack such a connection to the locus of the events giving rise to the dispute, amounts to a clear abuse of discretion”).

  10. Flypsi, Inc. v. Google, LLC

    No. W-22-CV-00031-ADA (W.D. Tex. Nov. 21, 2022)

    Id. Flyp acknowledges that the Federal Circuit has found that where a plaintiff resides outside of the transferor district, this factor does not weigh against transfer. Id. (citing In re Apple, Inc., No. 2022-137, 2022 WL 1676400, at *2 (Fed. Cir. May 26, 2022)).