Motion To Transfer Denied

Judge Albright denied defendant Google’s motion to transfer.  He initially found “many discrepancies and vague assertions that appear to be unreliable” in Google’s venue declaration, after which he held an in-person hearing to have the declarants testify.  The court concluded that “based on that in person assessment of credibility, the court found the witnesses to be unreliable” for reasons specified in the opinion.

Motion to Dismiss/Transfer Denied

Judge Payne recommended denial of defendant Amazon’s motion to dismiss, finding that venue was proper based on the facts alleged for this stage of the lawsuit, noting that the defendant’s objections relied on disputed facts regarding the use of the accused products in the EDTX.  The court also rejected the claim that a forum selection clause require the case to be brought in Washington, and that venue was “clearly more convenient” there. 

Motions to Dismiss Granted w/Leave to Replead; Motion to Transfer Denied

In this pair of opinions addressing motions by two defendants, Judge Gilstrap granted the motions to dismiss, but with leave to replead, denied a motion seeking to find the defendant’s US subsidiary a necessary party, and denied the motion to transfer.

Fare Gets A Lyft to the NDCA

It was there – I had to say it.  Judge Albright granted Defendant Lyft’s motion to transfer, noting that the plaintiff failed to identify any specific relevant employees or evidence in the Western District of Texas.  “As a result, no factors weigh against transfer, while the relative ease of access to sources of proof, availability of compulsory process, convenience for willing witnesses, and local interest factors all weigh in favor of transfer.”

Motion to Transfer Waco Patent Case Granted by San Antonio Judge

WDTX Judge Xavier Rodriguez granted Google’s motion to transfer.  The court had earlier denied a motion for discovery into the extent to which Google employees in WDTX worked on the accused technology, noting that even if the products were made in the WDTX, the record showed that they were developed – and the relevant suppliers – were located in California.    

NDCA No Because (Redacted); Austin, Yes

Judge Albright denied Meta’s motion to transfer to California, but granted the motion to transfer to Austin since both parties agreed that that would be more convenient– and the case will remain on his docket. Of interest, the parties’ assertions and the Court’s conclusions are heavily redacted, meaning that a future litigant against Meta will have a hard time identifying what it asserted and what contentions the court found wanting – especially regarding witnesses – in this prior case.