F.R.D. 471, 472 (S.D.N.Y.1997) (Connor, J.); Altman v. Liberty Equities Corp., 322 F.Supp. 377, 378-79 (S.D.N.Y.1971) (Tyler, J.) (describing “waiver by implication”). The inquiry courts use to determine whether a party has waived his right to challenge venue is fact specific. See Sherman, 86 F.R.D. at 472. As a result, “[tjhere is no clear boundary ... [indicating] what action a party may take during the pretrial stage and still invoke its venue objection and what conduct on its part will constitute waiver of that defense.” Id. However, a party’s repeated representations to the court that it is the proper forum may waive its right to subsequently raise the claim that venue lies elsewhere. See Orb Factory Ltd. v. Design Science Toys, 6 F.Supp.2d 203, 206-07 (S.D.N.Y. 1998) (Sweet, J.) (<HOLDING>); Altman, 322 F.Supp. at 379 (holding that a
holding that a partys repeated representations that venue was proper in one forum waived its right to bring a subsequent motion under 28 usc  1406a challenging venue recognizing that special venue statutes are supplemented by the 28 usc  1391 venue provisions applicable to all civil cases holding venue proper where proper when the action was commenced holding that where a defendant if given the opportunity to renew a motion for a change of venue immediately prior to trial but fails to do so the right to challenge venue is waived holding that transfer most appropriate under 28 usc  1406a