• All Courts
  • Federal Courts
  • Bankruptcies
  • PTAB
  • ITC
Track Search
Export
Download All
28 results

Cree, Inc. v. Honeywell International Inc.

Docket 3:14-cv-00737, Wisconsin Western District Court (Oct. 28, 2014)
District Judge William M. Conley, presiding, Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker
Patent
DivisionMadison
FlagsCLOSED, PROTECTIVE_ORDER
Cause35:271 Patent Infringement
Case Type830 Patent
Tags830 Patent, 830 Patent
Patent
12419463; 7910938; 8659034; 8766298; 8860058
7910938
865903487662988860058
Plaintiff Cree, Inc.
Defendant Honeywell International Inc.
Counter Claimant Honeywell International Inc.
...
cite Cite Docket

Inter Partes Review of U.S. Pat. 7,910,938

Docket IPR2015-00747, Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Feb. 18, 2015)
Benjamin Wood, Kevin Turner, Robert Weinschenk, presiding
Case TypeInter Partes Review
Patent
7910938
Petitioner Kingbright Electronics Company Ltd.
Patent Owner Cree, Inc.
Petitioner Sunled Company
...
cite Cite Docket

No. 67 ORDER denying 25 Motion to Transfer to the District of Minnesota by Defendant Honeywell International ...

Document Cree, Inc. v. Honeywell International Inc., 3:14-cv-00737, No. 67 (W.D.Wis Mar. 25, 2015)
Cree represents that it selected this district as the venue for its action against Honeywell in part based on its connection to Wisconsin, where it maintains its largest LED manufacturing facility (Pl.’s Opp’n (dkt. #30) 1, 7), although other tactical reasons, including speed to trial, likely play a role as well.
The court’s weighing of the factors under § 1404(a) “permits a ‘flexible and individualized analysis’ and affords district courts the opportunity to look beyond a narrow or rigid set of considerations in their determinations.” Research Automation, Inc. v. Schrader–Bridgeport Int’l, Inc., 626 F.3d 973, 978 (7th Cir. 2010) (quoting Stewart Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988)).
Wis. Nov. 20, 2014) (“While it is true that Neenah is not technically within the boundary of the Western District, [plaintiff] resides in Wisconsin and in close proximity to this District.”) (emphasis added).
Honeywell cites several decisions from this district in support of its argument that the location of its employees and facilities is an appropriate consideration in determining whether transfer is warranted.
Coupled with neutral interests of justice factors, Honeywell’s minimal showing of greater convenience to itself and its witnesses fails to establish that the District of Minnesota is a “clearly more convenient” forum for this action.
cite Cite Document

No. 65

Document Cree, Inc. v. Honeywell International Inc., 3:14-cv-00737, No. 65 (W.D.Wis Mar. 18, 2015)

cite Cite Document

10 Notice: Notice of Refund

Document IPR2015-00747, No. 10 Notice - Notice of Refund (P.T.A.B. Jan. 5, 2016)

cite Cite Document

8 Institution Decision: Institution Decision

Document IPR2015-00747, No. 8 Institution Decision - Institution Decision (P.T.A.B. Aug. 20, 2015)

cite Cite Document

4 Notice of Filing Date Accorded to Petition: Notice of Filing Date Accorded to Petitio...

Document IPR2015-00747, No. 4 Notice of Filing Date Accorded to Petition - Notice of Filing Date Accorded to Petition (P.T.A.B. Mar. 10, 2015)

cite Cite Document

No. 1

Document Cree, Inc. v. Honeywell International Inc., 3:14-cv-00737, No. 1 (W.D.Wis Oct. 28, 2014)

cite Cite Document
1 2 3 >>