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

E.D. Tex.

Dynapass IP Holdings LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., No. 2:23-cv-00063 (E.D. Tex. May 3, 2024)

Denied
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
Case No.
No. 2:23-cv-00063, Dkt. No. 152
Decided
May 3, 2024
Judge
Roy S. Payne, M.J.
Document
Memorandum Order
Docket Entry
MEMORANDUM ORDER - denying 76
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 the Motion to Transfer Venue Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) filed by Defendant Amazon.com, Inc. Dkt. No. 76. For the following reasons, the Motion is DENIED. I. LEGAL STANDARD A. Venue The Judicial Code provides that 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) is the “sole and exclusive provision controlling venue in patent infringement actions” and is not supplemented by the general venue statutes. TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Grp. Brands LLC, 581 U.S. 258, 266 (2017) (citing Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Prod. Corp., 353 U.S. 222, 229 (1957)).