Cellectis S.A. v. Precision Biosciences, Inc.

50 Citing cases

  1. TSMC Tech., Inc. v. Zond, LLC

    Civil Action No. 14-721-LPS-CJB (D. Del. Dec. 19, 2014)   Cited 13 times
    Stating that even if first-filed suit is anticipatory that may not be, "in and of itself, . . . a sufficient basis to deviate from the first-filed rule"

    Rambus Inc., 645 F.3d at 1332. Compare VideoShare, LLC v. Google, Inc., Civil Action No. 13-990 GMS, 2014 WL 1338713, at *2 n.2 (D. Del. Apr. 1, 2014) ("In light of the fact that the Massachusetts court had not issued a ruling unfavorable to [plaintiff, in a related case] at the time [plaintiff] filed the Delaware actions, the Court is not persuaded that [plaintiff] was 'forum shopping' or seeking any improper advantage [by filing a further suit in this District, as opposed to in federal court in Massachusetts]"), and Cellectis S.A. v. Precision Biosciences, Inc., 858 F. Supp. 2d 376, 385 (D. Del. 2012) ("[T]he court declines to characterize a [plaintiff's] choice of venue as 'forum shopping' when, by moving to transfer venue, a defendant is doing the same thing—choosing a venue that it believes to be more favorable to its claims for whatever reason."), with Ross v. Institutional Longevity Assets LLC, Civil Action No. 12-102-LPS-CJB, 2013 WL 5299171, at *8-9 (D. Del. Sept. 20, 2013) (finding that transfer of a case was warranted in part because plaintiffs' filing in this District amounted to "forum shopping"—in that plaintiffs had previously received unfavorable decisions in a related matter in the transferee district prior to filing the instant suit, similar issues to those previously decided in the transferee district were likely to arise in the instant case, and where mirror image litigation was filed in the transferee district just after the filing of the instant case), report and recommendation adopted, 2013 WL 5613998 (D. Del. Oct. 11, 2013).

  2. Nexans Inc. v. Belden Inc.

    966 F. Supp. 2d 396 (D. Del. 2013)   Cited 8 times
    Finding fact that patent at issue shared "the same title, the same inventors, and substantially the same specification" with another patent that was decidedly in dispute between the parties, weighed in favor of a finding of subject matter jurisdiction

    It applies to mirror-image litigation that, if resulting in two conflicting judgments, may require separate appeals. See Cellectis S.A. v. Precision Biosciences, Inc., 858 F.Supp.2d 376, 384 (D.Del.2012) (citing Hazeltine, 122 F.2d at 930). The Indiana action asserts infringement of the Belden patents, which are the same patents named in the declaratory judgment claims of the instant action.

  3. Abbott Labs. v. Roxane Labs., Inc.

    Civil Action No. 12-457-RGA-CJB (D. Del. May. 28, 2013)   Cited 16 times
    Declining to find action first-filed when parties were "in essence the same, and there [would] be significant commonalities of fact and law among the two suits," because "the subject matter of the suits are different enough to render the first-filed rule inapplicable"

    "[A] claim for patent infringement arises wherever someone has committed acts of infringement, to wit, 'makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention' without authority." Cellectis S.A. v.Precision Biosciences, Inc., 858 F. Supp. 2d 376, 381 (D. Del. 2012) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 271(a)). When assessing where a claim for patent infringement arose, the district court will in part focus on the activity surrounding the production, design and manufacture of the infringing product.

  4. Am. Axle & Mfg., Inc. v. Neapco Holdings LLC

    Civil Action No. 15-1168-LPS-CJB (D. Del. Sep. 23, 2016)   Cited 6 times

    Even to the extent that a party makes such a showing, it is worth keeping in mind that the practical impact of this factor is limited, in light of the fact that so few civil cases today proceed to trial (and at trial, so few fact witnesses testify live). Cellectis S.A. v. Precision Biosciences, Inc., 858 F. Supp. 2d 376, 382 n.6 (D. Del. 2012); Altera, 842 F. Supp. 2d at 757-58. Neapco argues that this factor weighs "heavily" in favor of transfer because there are a number of third-party witnesses with relevant testimony who are based in the Eastern District of Michigan. (D.I. 14 at 11-12; D.I. 22 at 7) More specifically, Neapco states that likely Michigan-based third-party witnesses include three named inventors of the patents-in-suit, two employees of Caraustar (Neapco's third-party manufacturer of liners) and two employees of General Motors ("GM"), Neapco's third-party customer (one of whom, David Schankin, is also a named inventor).

  5. Papst Licensing GmBh v. Lattice Semiconductor Corp.

    126 F. Supp. 3d 430 (D. Del. 2015)   Cited 34 times
    Noting this prong's concern for “the interests of judicial economy”

    Id. And as the Court noted above, the appropriate focus as to this first Jumara private interest factor is on the strength and legitimacy of Plaintiff s reasons for filing suit in this District. Cf.In re Amendt, 169 Fed.Appx. 93, 96 (3d Cir.2006) (citing Jumara and, in examining the first two private interest factors, considering the reasoning behind the parties' choices to litigate in the respective fora, and concluding that because elements of the claims “arose in [plaintiffs' preferred forum and defendant's preferred forum,]” then the weight given to these two factors effectively cancelled each other out); Cellectis S.A. v. Precision Biosciences, Inc., 858 F.Supp.2d 376, 381 (D.Del.2012) (finding that where the foreign corporation plaintiff filed suit in Delaware for legitimate reasons, including the fact that the defendant was a Delaware corporation, the factor weighed against transfer). Of course, if a plaintiff like Papst has no ties to Delaware and is based overseas, those facts will certainly be relevant in the analysis of other Jumara factors, as is further discussed below.

  6. Good Tech. Corp. v. MobileIron, Inc.

    Civil Action No. 14-1308-LPS-CJB (D. Del. Mar. 27, 2015)   Cited 4 times
    Finding that this factor should weigh squarely in favor of transfer where nearly all of the relevant third-party inventors lived in the proposed transferee district, where two of those inventors were listed on both parties' initial disclosures as having discoverable information, and where as to one of those third-party inventors, in a prior litigation, the defendant was required to subpoena the inventor in order to procure his testimony

    It is true that the practical impact of this factor is limited, in light of the fact that so few civil cases today proceed to trial (and at trial, so few fact witnesses testify live). Cellectis S.A. v. Precision Biosciences, Inc., 858 F. Supp. 2d 376, 382 n.6 (D. Del. 2012); Altera, 842 F. Supp. 2d at 757-58. And, as Plaintiffs note, as to many of the third-party witnesses Defendant references, Defendant did not cite to specific evidence indicating that the witnesses would actually be unlikely to participate in a trial in Delaware.

  7. Good Tech. Corp. v. Airwatch, LLC

    Civil Action No. 14-1092-LPS-CJB (D. Del. Jan. 21, 2015)   Cited 2 times
    Holding this factor weighed in favor of transfer, even where accused products were marketed and sold nationwide, because bulk of such activity occurred in proposed transferee district

    As an initial matter, our Court has noted that the practical impact of this factor is limited, in light of the fact that so few civil cases today proceed to trial (and at trial, so few fact witnesses testify live). Cellectis S.A. v. Precision Biosciences, Inc., 858 F. Supp. 2d 376, 382 n.6 (D. Del. 2012); Altera, 842 F. Supp. 2d at 757-58. A party's ability to put forward testimony of witnesses of its choosing at trial is, of course, important; these cases simply recognize that the impact of this factor has to be tempered a bit by the unlikely event of a trial's occurrence.

  8. Malibu Boats, LLC v. Nautique Boat Co.

    No.: 3:13-CV-656-TAV-HBG (E.D. Tenn. Jan. 16, 2014)   Cited 5 times

    This general rule, however, "does not supersede the inquiry into the balance of convenience" under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Zimmer, 478 F. Supp. 2d at 989; see also Cellectis S.A. v. Precision Biosciences, Inc., 858 F. Supp. 2d 376, 380 (D. Del. 2012) (noting that a "court must take into consideration the 'general' rule that 'favors the forum of the first-filed action'" in addition to its § 1404 analysis (quoting Genentech, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 998 F.2d 931, 937038 (Fed. Cir. 1993), overruled on other grounds by Wilton v. Seven Falls Co., 515 U.S. 277 (1995))). This statute provides:

  9. McRo, Inc. v. Activision Blizzard, Inc.

    Civil Action No. 12-1508-LPS-CJB (D. Del. Dec. 13, 2013)   Cited 12 times
    Finding second factor favors transfer in patent infringement action because "[e]ven taking into account Defendants' nationwide sales, it appears that the primary acts giving rise to McRo's claims of infringement . . . have a strong connection to the Central District (one far stronger than their connection to Delaware)"

    " "[A] claim for patent infringement arises wherever someone has committed acts of infringement, to wit, 'makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention' without authority." Cellectis S.A. v. Precision Biosciences, Inc., 858 F. Supp. 2d 376, 381 (D. Del. 2012) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 271(a)); Wacoh Co. v. Kionix Inc., 845 F. Supp. 2d 597, 602 (D. Del. 2012). When assessing this factor, however, our Court has often focused in particular on the activity surrounding the production, design and manufacture of the allegedly infringing product.

  10. Schubert v. OSRAM AG

    Civil Action No. 12-923-GMS (D. Del. Feb. 14, 2013)   Cited 8 times
    Finding this factor to weigh "slightly in favor of transfer" and granting it "only minimal weight" where the defendant failed to, inter alia, "present evidence of unavailability that might allow the court to do more than draw a reasonable inference that prospective witnesses may refuse to testify in this district"

    " Id. "[A]s a matter of law, a claim for patent infringement arises wherever someone has committed acts of infringement, to wit, 'makes, uses, offers to sell, or sells any patented invention' without authority." Cellectis S.A. v. Precision Biosciences, Inc., 858 F. Supp. 2d 376, 381 (D. Del. 2012) (quoting 35 U.S.C. § 271(a)); see also Smart Audio Techs., 2012 WL 5865742, at *7. Accordingly, where an accused infringer operates on a national or global scope, this factor is generally neutral.