Patent opinions from the Eastern District of Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

E.D. Tex.

Americans For Fair Patent Use, LLC v. Sprint Nextel Corp. et al, No. 2:10-cv-00237 (E.D. Tex. Jan. 12, 2011)

Denied
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
Case No.
No. 2:10-cv-00237, Dkt. No. 85
Decided
January 12, 2011
Judge
T. John Ward, J.
Document
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Docket Entry
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES 39 Defendant Verizons Motion to Sever and to Transfer Venue to the District of New Jersey
Length
9 pages

From the Opinion

The passage below is extracted verbatim from the opening of the document. It has not been editorially summarized — consult the full opinion for the court's complete reasoning.

Before the Court is Defendant Cellco Partnership D/B/A Verizon Wireless‟ (“Verizon”) Motion to Sever and Transfer Venue. (Dkt. No. 39.) Other defendants in this case include Sprint Nextel Corp. and Sprint Spectrum L.P. (collectively “Sprint”) and Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (“Samsung”). The C ourt, having considered the sever and venue motion and the arguments of counsel, DENIES the motion to sever. The Court also DENIES the motion to transfer venue to the United States D istrict Court for the District of New Jersey pursuant to 28 U.S.C.