Changes

::<footnote 3> The court in Honda declined to hold explicitly that venue would be proper in a district if there were "substantial" activities in that district but more substantial activities in another district, see 374 F. Supp. at 890, 892, although later cases applying Honda's holding often held that "substantial" activity would be sufficient regardless of the activity in other districts. See, e.g., Children's Television, supra, 223 U.S.P.Q. at 968. The new statute makes it clear that substantial activity is enough even if there is greater activity in another district.

::<footnote 3> The court in Honda declined to hold explicitly that venue would be proper in a district if there were "substantial" activities in that district but more substantial activities in another district, see 374 F. Supp. at 890, 892, although later cases applying Honda's holding often held that "substantial" activity would be sufficient regardless of the activity in other districts. See, e.g., Children's Television, supra, 223 U.S.P.Q. at 968. The new statute makes it clear that substantial activity is enough even if there is greater activity in another district.

[[category:District Court Cases]]

[[Category:District Court Cases]]

[[category:venue]]

[[Category:Venue]]