4 canonical passages across 3 cases, quoted by 14 opinions in total. These passages cluster together because the same opinions keep quoting them side by side — they state parts of one doctrine. The anchor passage is from In Re Emc Corp..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | In Re Emc Corp. Anchor | green | “e have held that a district court's experience with a patent in prior litigation and the co-pendency of cases involving the same patent are permissible considerations in ruling on a motion to transfer venue.” | 4 |
| 2 | Santi v. National Business Records Management, LLC | green | “section 1404 requires a two-pronged analysis.” | 4 |
| 3 | Liggett Group Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. | green | “among the criteria in determining the advisability of transfer is whether transfer will promote the interests of justice.” | 3 |
| 4 | Liggett Group Inc. v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co. | green | “one situation where deference to the choice of forum is curbed is where the plaintiff has not chosen a home forum.” | 3 |
A red or yellow flag on a member means the underlying case has negative treatment — for those, check the case page before relying on the passage.