Try our Advanced Search for more refined results
- Law360
- Law360 UK
- Law360 Pulse
- Law360 Employment Authority
- Law360 Tax Authority
- Law360 Insurance Authority
- Law360 Real Estate Authority
- Law360 Healthcare Authority
- Law360 Bankruptcy Authority
- Products
- Lexis®
- Law360 In-Depth
- Law360 Podcasts
- Rankings
- Regional Powerhouses
- Law360's MVPs
- Women in Law Report
- Law360 400
- Diversity Snapshot
- Practice Groups of the Year
- Rising Stars
- Titans of the Plaintiffs Bar
- Sections
- Adv. Search & Platform Tools
- About all sections
- Browse all sections
- Banking
- Bankruptcy
- Class Action
- Competition
- Employment
- Energy
- Expert Analysis
- Insurance
- Intellectual Property
- Product Liability
- Securities
- Beta Tools
- Track docs
- Track attorneys
- Track judges
CA, Inc. et al v. Netflix, Inc.
Case Number:
2:21-cv-00080
Court:
Nature of Suit:
Judge:
Firms
- Baker Botts
- Dacus Law Firm
- Gillam Smith
- Holland & Knight
- Hopkins & Carley
- Keker Van Nest & Peters
- Kirkland & Ellis
- McKool Smith
- Paul Hastings
- Sheppard Mullin
- Winstead PC
Companies
Sectors & Industries:
-
October 26, 2021
Netflix Must Face Patent Suit In EDTX, Gilstrap Rules
Netflix will have to face a patent dispute brought by business-to-business software company CA Inc. in Texas instead of the streaming giant's preferred venue of California, Eastern District of Texas Judge Rodney Gilstrap has ruled.
-
October 06, 2021
Local Servers Can't Determine Patent Suit Venue, Netflix Says
Netflix Inc. urged a Texas federal judge Tuesday to ship a patent dispute brought by business-to-business software company CA Inc. to the Northern District of California despite a magistrate judge's recommendation, saying that a company's "virtual spaces" cannot be used to determine a patent suit's venue.
-
September 28, 2021
Netflix's Control Over Servers May Justify Venue In EDTX
A federal magistrate judge in Texas said Netflix should have to face patent litigation in the state, as the company has an active role in maintaining servers located in the district that sets it apart from the Federal Circuit's related ruling last year in a case against Google.