Traxcell Technologies, LLC. v. Google LLC
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:22-cv-04807
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 3
In Traxcell Technologies v. Google, Judge Corley granted Google’s motion to transfer the case because Traxcell did not timely respond.
Traxcell Technologies, LLC and Google LLC; the case was transferred from the Western District of Texas to the Northern District of California without a decision on the underlying dispute.
What happened
Traxcell Technologies, LLC sued Google LLC in the Western District of Texas. Google moved under federal law to transfer the case to the Northern District of California.
Traxcell did not file a response or a timely notice that it intended to take venue-related discovery within the required 14-day period. The court therefore treated Google’s motion as unopposed.
Judge Jacquelyn Corley granted Google’s motion to transfer venue to the Northern District of California. The order did not decide the underlying dispute.
The detailed version
- Traxcell Technologies, LLC. v. Google LLC · No. 3:22-cv-04807
- Jacquelyn Corley
- Aug. 22, 2022
Background
Google moved to transfer the case from the Western District of Texas to the Northern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). The motion was filed on May 3, 2022.
Under the Western District of Texas’s local rules and standing order for patent cases, Traxcell had to respond within 14 days or file a notice stating that venue discovery would delay its response. Traxcell did neither within that period. It filed a venue-discovery notice on May 18, 2022, but the court ruled that the notice was untimely. Traxcell also had not filed a response to Google’s motion by the date of the order.
Ruling
The court treated the motion as unopposed under Local Rule CV-7(D)(2), which permits the court to grant a motion when no response is filed on time. The court also noted that the same counsel had previously been warned about repeated late filings in a prior related proceeding.
The court granted Google’s Motion to Transfer Venue to the Northern District of California. The order resolved the venue question and did not address the merits of the underlying dispute.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.