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

E.D. Tex.

Opticurrent v. Bitfenix Co. Ltd., No. 2:21-cv-00159 (E.D. Tex. Feb. 25, 2022)

Denied
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
Case No.
No. 2:21-cv-00159, Dkt. No. 36
Decided
February 25, 2022
Judge
Roy S. Payne, M.J.
Document
Order
Docket Entry
MEMORANDUM OPINION denying 22 Motion to Transfer
Length
14 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 the Motion to Transfer, filed by Defendant Bitfenix Co. Ltd.. Dkt. No. 22.1 Defendant moves the Court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), to transfer the above-captioned matter to the Northern District of California (“NDCA”). Id. at 5. 2 Defendant is a Taiwanese company with no presence in California, while Plaintiff is a Texas company also with no presence in California. I. BACKGROUND On June 10, 2021, Plaintiff Opticurrent, LLC filed the present lawsuit accusing Defendant of infringing U.S. Pat. N o. 6,958,623 (“‘623 Patent”). Dkt.