Hybrid Audio, LLC v. ASUS Computer International, Inc. et al. (16-cv-10643).

Judge Zobel allowed Hybrid Audio’s motion to transfer this case to the Northern District of California and denied ASUS’ motion to dismiss.  The ASUS defendants are a Taiwanese corporation and its U.S. subsidiary, which is incorporated in and resides in California.  The parties agreed that venue in Massachusetts is no longer proper, pursuant to TC Heartland; the real action in this issue was ASUS’ desire that the case be dismissed, forcing Hybrid Audio to refile in California – as the asserted patent expired prior to the filing of the lawsuit, and ASUS’ first notice of infringement was on January 5, 2011, refiling would eliminate ten months of damages that were available pursuant to the six-year limit on damages set forth in 35 U.S.C. § 286.  Hybrid Audio sought to have the case transferred “in the interest of justice.”  Judge Zobel endorsed Hybrid’s motion, rather than authoring an opinion of her own.

One thought on “Hybrid Audio, LLC v. ASUS Computer International, Inc. et al. (16-cv-10643).”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s