Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Tramontane Ip, LLC v. Mitac Digital Corp.

March 14, 2012

TRAMONTANE IP, LLC
v.
MITAC DIGITAL CORP., ET AL.



The opinion of the court was delivered by: Honorable Percy Anderson, United States District Judge

CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

Present: The Honorable PERCY ANDERSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Paul Songco N/A N/A

Deputy Clerk Court Reporter Tape No.

Attorneys Present for Plaintiffs: Attorneys Present for Defendants:

None None

Proceedings: IN CHAMBERS - ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE

Before the Court is a Complaint filed by plaintiff Tramontane IP, LLC ("Plaintiff"). The Complaint alleges claims of patent infringement against defendants MiTAC Digital Corporation and Mio Technology USA Ltd. (collectively, "Defendants"). This action was originally filed in the Eastern District of Virginia, but was transferred to this District pursuant to the stipulation of the parties. The Complaint alleges that Plaintiff has its principal place of business in Alexandria, Virginia. Defendant MiTAC Digital Corporation is a California corporation with its principal place of business in Santa Clara, California, and defendant Mio Technology USA Ltd. is a California corporation with its principal place of business in Fremont, CA. Notwithstanding the apparently tenuous connection between this action and this District, the parties have indicated their preference to litigate here.

The Court orders Plaintiff to show cause, in writing not to exceed 15 pages, why this action should not be transferred to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (the "Northern District"). See 28 U.S.C. §§ 124(a), 1404(a). All factual matters relied upon in Plaintiff's submission must be supported by appropriate declarations and admissible evidence. To assist the Court in determining whether transfer is appropriate and in the interest of justice, Plaintiff is directed to address the following, in addition to sharing its beliefs as to which forum is more convenient for the parties and witnesses:

1. Whether this action could have been brought in the Northern District;

2. Whether venue is appropriate in the Northern District, and the Central District of California (the "Central District");

3. What contacts, if any, each of the parties has to the Central District and the Northern District. Plaintiff should include information regarding the location of the parties' administrative offices, real property, sources of revenue, and points of public contact;

4. What connection Plaintiff's causes of action have to the Central District and ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.