Patent Harbor, LLC v. Twentieth Century Fox Home Entertainment, LLC et al, No. 6:10-cv-00607 (E.D. Tex. May 24, 2012)

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 Defendants‟ Motion to Transfer Venue Under 28 U.S. § 1404(a) to the Central District of California (6:10 -cv-607 Doc. No. 339; 6:11-cv-229 Doc. No. 314) 1 (“Motion”). Plaintiff Patent Harbor, LLC (“Patent Harbor”) fi led an opposition bri ef (Doc. No. 362) (“ RESPONSE”) and a sur -reply (Doc. No. 408) (“S UR-REPLY”). Defendants filed a reply. (Doc. No. 384) (“REPLY”). Because Defendants have failed to meet their burden of showing that the Central District of California is a clearly more convenient forum, the Motion is DENIED.