Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v. Xilinx, Inc.,, No. 2:17-cv-00100 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 14, 2017)

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.

In this patent case, the Court will now consider Xilinx, Inc.’s Motion to Dismiss Under Rule 12(b)(6) Or, In The Alternative, to Transfer Venue Under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) [Dkt. # 18]. Since filing the motion, Xilinx has withdrawn the motion to dismiss, and now only seeks transfer under § 1404(a). Reply [Dkt. # 26] at 1. After reviewing the parties’ briefing, the Court concludes the motion to transfer should be GRANTED. I. BACKGROUND Defendant Xilinx is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in San Jose, California. Wu Decl. (Jan.