[PDF] High Tech Computer Corp - Media Corporate IR Net
19 jan 2007 · High Tech Computer Corp ability to maintain a high quality products delivery Exercise best practice in corporate governance
Q IR Presentation
[PDF] HTC Corporation
HTC Corporation (Formerly High Tech Computer Corporation) Financial Statements for the Six Months Ended June 30 2006 2007 and 2008 and
AE
[PDF] HTC Corporation and Subsidiaries
3 août 2020 · HTC Investment Corporation General investing activities 100 00 100 00 100 00 - PT High Tech Computer Indonesia Marketing repair and
Q Financial Results Consolidated Financial Report IFRS in English
[PDF] Lesson 071 - The Leontief Input-Output Model
The company must produce 5155 batteries to satisfy an external demand for 5000 batteries 1 The High-Tech Computer Company produces computer chips
leon
[PDF] High Tech Specialization: A Comparison of High Technology Centers
A comparative analysis of 14 “high tech” metropolitan areas found that High technology businesses particularly in software computers and the Internet
specialization
[PDF] Ten Steps to a High Tech Future: The New Economy in Metropolitan
1998 while the region as a whole saw 27000 new high tech jobs Most of the growth occurred in the software/computer services/internet cluster
SommersReport
[PDF] 10-544pdf - District of Delaware
action against High Tech Computer Corp a/k/a HTC Corp HTC (RV I ) Corp HTC America Inc and Exedea Inc (collectively "HTC") alleging that HTC's
INTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT
FORTHEDISTRICTOFDELAWARE
APPLEINC.,)
Plaintiff,)
v.)HIGHTECHCOMPUTERCORP.,a/k/a)
HTCCORP.,HTC(RV.I.)CORP.,HTC)
AMERICA,INC.,andEXEDEA,INC.,)
Defendants.)
C.A.No.10-544-GMS
MEMORANDUM
I.INTRODUCTION
OnJune21,2010,AppleInc.("Apple")filedtheabove-captionedpatentinfringement actionagainstHighTechComputerCorp.,a/k/aHTCCorp.,HTC (RV.I.)Corp.,HTCAmerica, Inc.andExedea,Inc.(collectively,"HTC"),allegingthatHTC'ssmartphonetechnology infringesfourApplepatents.PresentlybeforethecourtisHTC'smotiontotransfervenuetothe
NorthernDistrict
ofCaliforniapursuantto28U.S.C.§1404(a).(C.A.No.10-166,D.I.8;C.A. No.10-167,D.I.8.)Forthereasonsthatfollow,thecourtwilldenyHTC'smotion.
II.BACKGROUND
AppleisaCaliforniacorporationwithitsprincipalplaceofbusinessinCupertino,California.(D.!.
10at7.)HTCCorp.isaTaiwanesecorporationwithitsprincipalplaceof
businessinTaoyuan,Taiwan.(Id.at9.)HTCAmerica,Inc.isincorporatedinTexasandhasits principalplace ofbusinessinBellevue,Washington.(Id.)HTC(RV.I.)Corp.isafinancial holdingcompanythatisincorporatedandhasitsprincipalplaceofbusinessintheBritishVirgin Islands.(Id.)Exedea,Inc.isincorporatedinTexasandhasitsprincipalplace ofbusinessinTexas.(Id.)
HTCmaintainsadesignfacilityinSanFrancisco,California,whichfocusesonhardware andusabilitydesignforHTCsmartphones.(Id.at8.)Most oftheengineerswhoworkedonthe allegedlyinfringinghardwareandsoftwaredesign,developmentandintegrationforHTC'ssmart phonesresideinTaiwan.(Id.) HTC'sprincipalU.S.operations,headquarteredinBellevue, Washington,includesales,marketingandproductsupportactivitiestargetedtotheU.S.market. (Id.)DocumentsandwitnessesrelevanttoHTC'sactivitiesmaybefoundinCalifornia,WashingtonandTaiwan.(Id.)
HTCcollaborateswiththirdpartiessuchasGoogleandQualcommInc.indeveloping, designingandmanufacturingitsallegedlyinfringingmobiledevices.(Id.at7.)Googleisa DelawarecorporationthatmaintainsitsheadquartersinMountainView,California.(Id.at 6; D.1.14at17.)Android,aCalifornia-basedcompanyacquiredbyGooglein2005,developedthe targetedAndroidOperatingSysteminSiliconValley,California. (0.1.10at6.)QualcommInc., aDelawarecorporationbasedinSanDiego,California,designsandsellsthebaseband processingchipthatperformsthepower-savingfunction ofHTCdevices.(Id.at7;DJ.14at 17.)III.STANDARDOFREVIEW
PursuanttoSection1404(a),thecourtmaytransferacivilaction"fortheconvenienceof thepartiesandwitnesses,intheinterestofjustice,...toanyotherdistrict...whereitmight havebeenbrought."28U.S.C.§1404(a).Theburdentoestablishtheneedtotransferrestson 2 themovingparty,andthe"plaintiffschoiceofvenue[will]notbelightlydisturbed."Jumarav. StateFarmIns.Co.,55F.3d873,879(3dCir.1995).Inotherwords,"unlessthebalanceof conveniencestronglyfavorsatransferinfavorof[the]defendant,theplaintiffschoiceofforum shouldprevail."Shutte v.ArmcoSteelCorp.,431F.2d22,25(3dCir.1970). Whenconsideringamotiontotransfer,thecourtmustdetermine"whetheronbalancethe litigationwouldmoreconvenientlyproceedandtheinterests ofjusticebebetterservedby transfertoadifferentforum."Jumara,55F.3dat879.This inquiryrequires"amulti-factored
test"includingnotonlytheconvenience ofthepartiesandwitnessesandtheinterestsofjustice, butalsotheprivateandpublicinterestssetforthinJumara.Id.at875.Theprivateinterests
includethe plaintiffsforumpreferenceasmanifestedintheoriginalchoice,thedefendant's forumpreference,whethertheclaimaroseelsewhere,theconvenience ofthepartiesasindicated bytheirphysicalandfinancialcondition,theconvenience oftheexpectedwitnesses,butonlyto theextentthatthewitnessesmayactuallybeunavailablefortrialinone ofthefora,andthe location ofbooksandrecords,butonlytotheextentthattheycouldnotbeproducedinthe alternativeforum. l Id.at879.Therelevantpublicinterestsincludetheenforceabilityofthe judgment,practicalconsiderationsthatcouldmakethetrialeasy,expeditiousorinexpensive,the relativeadministrativedifficultyinthetwoforaresultingfromcourtcongestion,andthelocal interestindecidinglocalcontroversiesathomeaccordingtothepublicpolicies ofthefora.Id.at879-80.
1ThefirstthreeoftheseprivateinterestfactorscollapseintootherportionsoftheJumara
analysis.Thus,thecourtwillconsidertheminthecontext oftheentireinquiryonly.SeeAfymetrix,
Inc.v.Synteni,Inc.,28F.Supp.2d192(D.Del.1998).
3IV.DISCUSSION
Insupportofitsmotiontotransfer,HTCcontendsthatApple'schoiceofvenueshouldbe givenlittledeferencebecauseDelawareisneitherApple's"home turf'norisitmeaningfully connectedtothefacts ofthiscase.(D.1.10at12-13.)AccordingtoHTC,noneofthewitnesses ordocumentsrelevanttothecasesarelocatedin Delaware,whereasscores ofpotentialwitnesses andrelevantdocumentsmaybefoundintheNorthernDistrict ofCalifornia.(ld.at13-15.)HTC contendsthattheNorthernDistrict ofCaliforniahasastronginterestinresolvingthelitigation andwouldbeamoreconvenientforumforApplebecauseAppleisaCalifornia-basedplaintiff claiminginfringement ofinventionsthatwereconceivedofanddevelopedinCaliforniaby Californiaresidents.(ld.at15-19.)Moreover,HTCcontendsthattheamountINTHEUNITEDSTATESDISTRICTCOURT
FORTHEDISTRICTOFDELAWARE
APPLEINC.,)
Plaintiff,)
v.)HIGHTECHCOMPUTERCORP.,a/k/a)
HTCCORP.,HTC(RV.I.)CORP.,HTC)
AMERICA,INC.,andEXEDEA,INC.,)
Defendants.)
C.A.No.10-544-GMS
MEMORANDUM
I.INTRODUCTION
OnJune21,2010,AppleInc.("Apple")filedtheabove-captionedpatentinfringement actionagainstHighTechComputerCorp.,a/k/aHTCCorp.,HTC (RV.I.)Corp.,HTCAmerica, Inc.andExedea,Inc.(collectively,"HTC"),allegingthatHTC'ssmartphonetechnology infringesfourApplepatents.PresentlybeforethecourtisHTC'smotiontotransfervenuetothe
NorthernDistrict
ofCaliforniapursuantto28U.S.C.§1404(a).(C.A.No.10-166,D.I.8;C.A. No.10-167,D.I.8.)Forthereasonsthatfollow,thecourtwilldenyHTC'smotion.
II.BACKGROUND
AppleisaCaliforniacorporationwithitsprincipalplaceofbusinessinCupertino,California.(D.!.
10at7.)HTCCorp.isaTaiwanesecorporationwithitsprincipalplaceof
businessinTaoyuan,Taiwan.(Id.at9.)HTCAmerica,Inc.isincorporatedinTexasandhasits principalplace ofbusinessinBellevue,Washington.(Id.)HTC(RV.I.)Corp.isafinancial holdingcompanythatisincorporatedandhasitsprincipalplaceofbusinessintheBritishVirgin Islands.(Id.)Exedea,Inc.isincorporatedinTexasandhasitsprincipalplace ofbusinessinTexas.(Id.)
HTCmaintainsadesignfacilityinSanFrancisco,California,whichfocusesonhardware andusabilitydesignforHTCsmartphones.(Id.at8.)Most oftheengineerswhoworkedonthe allegedlyinfringinghardwareandsoftwaredesign,developmentandintegrationforHTC'ssmart phonesresideinTaiwan.(Id.) HTC'sprincipalU.S.operations,headquarteredinBellevue, Washington,includesales,marketingandproductsupportactivitiestargetedtotheU.S.market. (Id.)DocumentsandwitnessesrelevanttoHTC'sactivitiesmaybefoundinCalifornia,WashingtonandTaiwan.(Id.)
HTCcollaborateswiththirdpartiessuchasGoogleandQualcommInc.indeveloping, designingandmanufacturingitsallegedlyinfringingmobiledevices.(Id.at7.)Googleisa DelawarecorporationthatmaintainsitsheadquartersinMountainView,California.(Id.at 6; D.1.14at17.)Android,aCalifornia-basedcompanyacquiredbyGooglein2005,developedthe targetedAndroidOperatingSysteminSiliconValley,California. (0.1.10at6.)QualcommInc., aDelawarecorporationbasedinSanDiego,California,designsandsellsthebaseband processingchipthatperformsthepower-savingfunction ofHTCdevices.(Id.at7;DJ.14at 17.)III.STANDARDOFREVIEW
PursuanttoSection1404(a),thecourtmaytransferacivilaction"fortheconvenienceof thepartiesandwitnesses,intheinterestofjustice,...toanyotherdistrict...whereitmight havebeenbrought."28U.S.C.§1404(a).Theburdentoestablishtheneedtotransferrestson 2 themovingparty,andthe"plaintiffschoiceofvenue[will]notbelightlydisturbed."Jumarav. StateFarmIns.Co.,55F.3d873,879(3dCir.1995).Inotherwords,"unlessthebalanceof conveniencestronglyfavorsatransferinfavorof[the]defendant,theplaintiffschoiceofforum shouldprevail."Shutte v.ArmcoSteelCorp.,431F.2d22,25(3dCir.1970). Whenconsideringamotiontotransfer,thecourtmustdetermine"whetheronbalancethe litigationwouldmoreconvenientlyproceedandtheinterests ofjusticebebetterservedby transfertoadifferentforum."Jumara,55F.3dat879.This inquiryrequires"amulti-factored
test"includingnotonlytheconvenience ofthepartiesandwitnessesandtheinterestsofjustice, butalsotheprivateandpublicinterestssetforthinJumara.Id.at875.Theprivateinterests
includethe plaintiffsforumpreferenceasmanifestedintheoriginalchoice,thedefendant's forumpreference,whethertheclaimaroseelsewhere,theconvenience ofthepartiesasindicated bytheirphysicalandfinancialcondition,theconvenience oftheexpectedwitnesses,butonlyto theextentthatthewitnessesmayactuallybeunavailablefortrialinone ofthefora,andthe location ofbooksandrecords,butonlytotheextentthattheycouldnotbeproducedinthe alternativeforum. l Id.at879.Therelevantpublicinterestsincludetheenforceabilityofthe judgment,practicalconsiderationsthatcouldmakethetrialeasy,expeditiousorinexpensive,the relativeadministrativedifficultyinthetwoforaresultingfromcourtcongestion,andthelocal interestindecidinglocalcontroversiesathomeaccordingtothepublicpolicies ofthefora.Id.at879-80.
1ThefirstthreeoftheseprivateinterestfactorscollapseintootherportionsoftheJumara
analysis.Thus,thecourtwillconsidertheminthecontext oftheentireinquiryonly.SeeAfymetrix,
Inc.v.Synteni,Inc.,28F.Supp.2d192(D.Del.1998).
3IV.DISCUSSION
Insupportofitsmotiontotransfer,HTCcontendsthatApple'schoiceofvenueshouldbe givenlittledeferencebecauseDelawareisneitherApple's"home turf'norisitmeaningfully connectedtothefacts ofthiscase.(D.1.10at12-13.)AccordingtoHTC,noneofthewitnesses ordocumentsrelevanttothecasesarelocatedin Delaware,whereasscores ofpotentialwitnesses andrelevantdocumentsmaybefoundintheNorthernDistrict ofCalifornia.(ld.at13-15.)HTC contendsthattheNorthernDistrict ofCaliforniahasastronginterestinresolvingthelitigation andwouldbeamoreconvenientforumforApplebecauseAppleisaCalifornia-basedplaintiff claiminginfringement ofinventionsthatwereconceivedofanddevelopedinCaliforniaby Californiaresidents.(ld.at15-19.)Moreover,HTCcontendsthattheamount- hi tech computer systems inc
- high tech computer corporation traducir al español
- high tech computer corporation 中文