Eastman Kodak Co. v. Photaz Imports Ltd., Inc., 853 F.Supp. 667, 679 (W.D.N.Y.1993) (finding venue proper where infringement occurred and denying transfer because of insufficient showing of inconvenience), aff'd, 28 F.3d 102 (2d Cir.1994); Radical Products, Inc. v. Sundays Distrib., 821 F.Supp. 648, 649-50 (W.D.Wash.1992) (citing Sidco, infra, for the proposition that venue was proper in either of two districts in which infringement occurred); Habitat Wallpaper & Blinds, Inc. v. K.T. Scott, Ltd., 807 F.Supp. 470, 474 (N.D.Ill.1992) (having concluded that venue in either of two districts was proper because infringement occurred in both, court then considered convenience issues to determine proper venue); NLC, Inc. v. LENCO Electronics, Inc., 798 F.Supp. 1419, 1423 (E.D.Mo.1992) (<HOLDING>); Dave Guardala Mouthpieces, Inc. v. Sugal
holding venue proper where proper when the action was commenced holding without comment that venue in a trademark infringement case is proper where infringement occurred holding that venue is proper in any judicial district in which the corporation is doing business holding that venue was proper in district where underlying transactions and investments occurred and was not limited to district where party filed arbitration request holding that a patent infringement action is essentially a tort