Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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

Sprint Communications Company, L.P v. Comcast Cable Communications

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS


January 31, 2013

SPRINT COMMUNICATIONS COMPANY, L.P., PLAINTIFF,
v.
COMCAST CABLE COMMUNICATIONS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.

The opinion of the court was delivered by: Kathryn H. Vratil United States District Judge

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Defendants' Motion To Transfer Pursuant To 28 U.S.C. § 1404 (Doc. #42) filed September 25, 2012. Defendants in two other cases pending in this district, all of which deal with the same patents-in-suit, filed identical motions seeking transfer to the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.*fn1 Plaintiff opposes the motions. For the reasons stated in the orders denying the motions to transfer in the other two cases,*fn2 the Court denies defendants' motion.

Plaintiff Sprint Communications Company, L.P. ("Sprint") is a telecommunications company headquartered in Overland Park, Kansas. It owns a number of patents for Voice-over-Packet ("VoP") technology that are the subject of these three lawsuits. Defendants in the cases are also telecommunications companies that provide telephone services in Kansas. Defendants in this case are organized under the laws of Delaware or Pennsylvania and have their principal place of business in Pennsylvania.

In denying defendants' motion to transfer in Case No. 11-2686, Judge Marten analyzed the factors relevant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404 and concluded that "the balance of convenience factors do not strongly favor defendants' request for transfer of this matter to Delaware such that Sprint's choice of forum in Kansas may be properly disturbed." Case No. 11-2686, Doc. #55 at 9. This Court has carefully considered Judge Marten's order and concludes that the same analysis applies and such analysis yields the same result. Thus, for the reasons stated in Judge Marten's order, the Court denies defendants' motion to transfer.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants' Motion To Transfer Pursuant To 28 U.S.C. § 1404 (Doc. #42) filed September 25, 2012 be and hereby is OVERRULED.

Kathryn H. Vratil


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

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