Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist
← 628 F.3d 1342 - In re Vistaprint Ltd.

In re Vistaprint Ltd.’s Empirical Analysis

628 F.3d 1342 · 2010

Citation profile

36
cited by 36 later decisions
February 2023
most recently cited

3 federal appellate · 5 district ·

Relationships

Applies 28 U.S.C. § 1404

Relies on Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno · Van Dusen v. Barrack · Allied Chemical Corporation v. Daiflon Inc · Koster v. Lumbermens Mut Casualty Co · Continental Grain Company v. The Fbl-585

Most-quoted passages

The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 36 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.

  1. “The “interest of justice” is a separate component of a § 1404(a) transfer analysis, and may be determinative in a particular case, even if the convenience of the parties and witnesses might call for a different result. Factors traditionally considered in an “interest of justice” analysis relate to the efficient administration of the court system. For example, the interest of justice may be served by a transfer to a district where the litigants are more likely to receive a speedy trial[.] By the same token, related litigation should be transferred to a forum where consolidation is feasible. In a diversity action it is also considered advantageous to have federal judges try a case who are familiar with the applicable state law.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  2. “Our holding today does not mean that, once a patent is litigated in a particular venue the patent owner will necessarily have a free pass to maintain all future litigation involving that patent in that venue. However, where, as here, the trial court performed a detailed analysis explaining that it is very familiar with the only asserted patent and the related technology, and where there is a co-pending litigation before the trial court involving the same patent-in-suit, and pertaining to the same underlying technology and accusing similar services, we cannot say the trial court clearly abused its discretion in denying transfer.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority
  3. “Our reluctance to interfere is not merely a formality, but rather a longstanding recognition that a trial judge has a superior opportunity to familiarize himself or herself with the nature of the case and the probable testimony at trial, and ultimately is better able to dispose of these motions.”
    1 later decision quote this exact passage · from the majority

How this case has been treated — in progress

Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.