Tracfone Wireless, Inc. v. Pak China Group Co. (2012)
green
· 20 citation events
across 7 courts.
Showing the 9 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 2012 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
201220192026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
green
Stephen Dye v. Tamko Building Products, Inc. (2018)
Co., 843 F. Supp. 2d 1284, 1298 (S.D.
green
Rothenberg v. Knight Swift Transportation (2023)
Co. Ltd., 843 F. Supp. 2d 1284, 1301 (S.D.
green
Rothenberg v. United Parcel Service, Inc. (2023)
Co. Ltd., 843 F. Supp. 2d 1284, 1301 (S.D.
green
BRITO v. LG ELECTRONICS USA INC (2023)
Co., 843 F. Supp. 2d 1284, 1298 (S.D.
green
Dye v. Tamko Building Products, Inc. (2017)
This .statute includes “shrinkwrap contracts” like the one at issue, where an agreement becomes effective as soon as a customer opens the product. 843 F.Supp.2d 1284, 1298 (S.D.
citing TracFone Wireless, Inc. v. Access Telecom, Inc., 642 F.Supp.2d 1354, 1364 (S.D. Fla. 2009)
green
TracFone Wireless, Inc. v. Adams (2015)
Co., 843 F.Supp.2d 1284, 1291 (S.D.Fla.2012) (“Venue is proper in this Court ... because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred in this District, the impact of Defendants’ conduct occurred in this District, and Defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction in this District.”); TracFone Wireless, Inc. v. Bequator Corp., No. 10-cv-21462 (WMH), 2011 WL 1427635 , at *3 (S.D.Fla.
green
Technomarine SA v. Jacob Time, Inc. (2012)
See Perkins Sch. for the Blind v. Maxi-Aids, Inc., 274 F.Supp.2d 319, 322 (E.D.N.Y.2003) (finding sufficient allegation of infringement whether “defendants removed the [mark owner's] warranty and substituted their own inferior ... warranty”); TracFone Wireless, Inc. v. Pak China Group Co. Ltd., 843 F.Supp.2d 1284, 1298 (S.D.Fla.2012) (noting "the warranty information is removed, which invalidates the [manufacturer's] warranty in its entirety”).
green
Brain Pharma, LLC v. Scalini (2012)
Co. Ltd., 843 F.Supp.2d 1284, 1297 (S.D.Fla.2012).
June 6, 2011) (citing Intelsat Corp. v. Multivision TV LLC, 736 F.Supp.2d 1334, 1342 (S.D.Fla.2010)) (finding service improper under Rule 4(f)(2)(C)(ii) when plaintiffs “sent the documents directly without having the clerk address and send them as the Rule specifies”); compare id., with TracFone Wireless, Inc. v. Pak China Group Co. Ltd., 843 F.Supp.2d 1284, 1293 (S.D.Fla.2012) (“TracFone’s service of the Summons and Amended Complaint on Defendants sent [by the Clerk of Cour…