Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
3 canonical passages across 2 cases, quoted by 17 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 TriStrata Technology, Inc. v. Emulgen Laboratories, Inc..
| # | Case | Flag | Canonical passage | Citers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | TriStrata Technology, Inc. v. Emulgen Laboratories, Inc. Anchor | green | “patent issues do not give rise to a local controversy or implicate local interests.” | 9 |
| 2 | Smart Audio Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc. | green | “(1) the parties' physical location; (2) the associated logistical and operational costs to the parties' employees in traveling to delaware (as opposed to the proposed transferee district) for litigation purposes; and (3) the relative ability of each party to bear these costs in …” | 4 |
| 3 | Smart Audio Technologies, LLC v. Apple, Inc. | green | “this factor is only given weight when there is some reason to believe that a witness actually will refuse to testify absent a subpoena.” | 4 |
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.