Summary
identifying such third party witnesses as employees of manufacturers of the accused products, the inventors of the accused products, and a prosecuting attorney as relevant in a patent infringement case and concluding that the presence of these individuals in the proposed transferee forum, weighed in favor of transfer
Summary of this case from Beacon Navigation GmbH v. Crysler Grp. L.L.C.Opinion
C.A. No. 03-014 GMS
April 25, 2003
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
I. INTRODUCTION
On January 7, 2003, the plaintiff, 3Com Corporation ("3Com") filed the instant action alleging infringement of three patents relating to network interface adapters. The defendant, D-Link Systems, Inc. ("D-Link"), moves to transfer this case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (D.I. 11). For the following reasons, the court will grant the defendant's motion.
II. DISCUSSION
D-Link moves to transfer this action to the District Court for the Northern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Section 1404(a) provides that "[f]or convenience of [the] parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice," the court may transfer a civil action "to any other district . . . where it might have been brought." 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). It is the movant's burden to establish the need for transfer, and `the plaintiff's choice of venue [will] not be lightly disturbed.' Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873, 879 (3d Cir. 1995) (citations omitted).
When considering a motion to transfer, the court must determine `whether on balance the litigation would more conveniently proceed and the interest of justice be better served by transfer to a different forum.' Id. This inquiry requires "a multi-factor balancing test" embracing not only the statutory criteria of convenience of the parties and the witnesses and the interest of justice, but all relevant factors, including certain private and public interests. Id. at 875, 879. These private interests include the plaintiff's choice of forum; the defendant's preference; whether the claim arose elsewhere; and the location of books and record, to the extent that they could not be produced in the alternative forum. Id. at 879. Among the relevant public interests are: "[t]he enforceability of the judgment; practical considerations that could make the trial easy, expeditious, or inexpensive; the relative administrative difficulty in the two fora resulting from court congestion; the local interest in deciding local controversies at home; [and] the public policies of the fora." Id. at 879-80 (citations omitted).
The first three of these private interest collapse into other portions of the Jumara analysis. The court, therefore, will consider them in the context of the entire inquiry only. See Affymetrix, Inc. v. Synteni, Inc. and Incite Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 28 F. Supp.2d 192 (D.Del. 1998).
Upon consideration of these factors, the court finds that D-Link has met its burden of demonstrating that transfer is appropriate. First, it is clear that this case could have been brought in the Northern District of California. Any federal district court possesses subject matter jurisdiction over federal patent law claims such as those at issue in the present action. 28 U.S.C. § 1331 and 1338. Further, venue is proper in the Northern District of California because the defendant is a California corporation with its sole place of business in that state. 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) ("Any civil action for patent infringement may be brought in the judicial district where the defendant resides. . . .").
Having determined that the case could be properly heard in the Northern District of California, the court now considers whether it would more conveniently proceed in that forum and whether the interest of justice supports a transfer to that district. Again, the court finds that these criteria are met. First, the court notes that although 3Com is a Delaware corporation, its principal place of business is in Santa Clara, California. D-Link is a California corporation with its sole place of business in Irvine, California. Although some of D-Link's products, including the accused products, are sold in Delaware, the connection to this forum ends there. Neither 3Com nor D-link maintains or owns any facility, property, or personnel in Delaware. Instead, the headquarters of both parties are located in California. Neither party has any books, records, or other documents in this district. Apparently, none of the acts related to the development of the accused products occurred in this district, while many, if not all, of these acts occurred in California. Clearly, litigating this case there would cause less disruption to business operations of each corporation, while eliminating the cost and time of cross-country transportation of persons and documents. In addition, D-Link was forced to retain local counsel for purposes of litigating in this district. Were the case transferred to California, this additional expense would not be required.
In addition, none of the anticipated third-party witnesses is subject to compulsory process in Delaware, but they may be compelled to testify in the Northern District of California. These witnesses include individuals involved in the development of the accused products, such as employees of the manufacturers of the products, Realtek Semiconductor Corp. ("Realtek") and Via Technologies, Inc. ("Via"). Realtek and Via are Taiwanese companies with offices and/or agents in northern California. Futhermore, at least one of the inventors of the accused products and one of the prosecuting attorneys could not be compelled to testify in this court. By contrast, each appears to live in northern California, and would be subject to compulsory process there. Finally, at least two witnesses with knowledge of allegedly invalidating prior art are subject to compulsory process in northern California, but not Delaware. Even if these witnesses were willing to travel to Delaware to testify in this court, it is certainly very inconvenient for them to do so, especially compared to traveling to a court in the state of their residence and employment. Convenience, cost, and expediency, then, favor a transfer.
The remaining factors of court congestion, the enforceability of the judgment, and the public polices of the fora neither favor nor counsel against transfer. These factors remain neutral in the court's analysis.
III. CONCLUSION
In short, Delaware seems to have little interest in the present dispute between these parties, while justice, convenience, cost, and expediency favor a forum in California. The court recognizes that the Northern District of California is not the plaintiff's choice of forum for the present action; however, it is an exceedingly more convenient and appropriate forum than Delaware. In other words, the movant has shown that `the litigation would more conveniently proceed and the interest of justice be better served by transfer' to California. Jumara, 55 F.3d at 879 (citations omitted). As such, transfer is appropriate.
For the aforementioned reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The defendant's Motion to Transfer the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California (D.I. 11) is GRANTED.