WMS and Aruze's status as direct competitors also indicates that joinder would be inappropriate. IpVenture, Inc. v. Acer, Inc., 879 F.Supp.2d 426, 430 (D.Del.2012). As such, they also cannot be joined “jointly” or “severally” under Section 299.
Yet due to the nature of ANDA litigation, it is also a fair inference that this case is more likely to go to trial as compared to other patent cases. See IpVenture, Inc. v.Acer, Inc., 879 F. Supp. 2d 426, 433 (D. Del. 2012) (noting that "numerous ANDA cases . . . go to trial in Delaware"). The record does not contain a great deal of evidence as to the ability of the parties to bear these costs in light of their respective size and financial wherewithal.
In response, Plaintiff contends that this factor weighs against transfer because "Delaware 'encourages the use by Delaware corporations of Delaware as a forum for the resolution of business disputes.'" (D.I. 38 at 13 (quoting IpVenture, Inc. v. Acer, Inc., 879 F. Supp. 2d 426, 433 (D. Del. 2012))). Given the competing public policies of the two districts, the Court will treat this factor as neutral.
Realtime's choice of Delaware as a forum weighs in its favor, but not as strongly as it would if Realtime had a place of business in Delaware. See IpVenture, Inc. v. Acer, Inc., 879 F. Supp. 2d 426, 431 (D. Del. 2012); Memory Integrity, LLC v. Intel Corp., C.A. No. 13-1804-GMS, 2015 WL 632026, at *3 (D. Del. Feb. 13, 2015) (concluding that a non-practicing entity's choice of forum should receive limited deference because it had no physical presence in Delaware). Accordingly, Realtime's forum preference weighs slightly against transfer.
Kroy's choice of Delaware as a forum weighs in Kroy's favor, but not as strongly as it would if Kroy had a place of business in Delaware. See IpVenture, Inc. v. Acer, Inc., 879 F. Supp. 2d 426, 431 (D. Del. 2012); see also Symantec Corp. v. Zscaler, Inc., C.A. No. 17-806-MAK, D.I. 25 at 3-4 (D. Del. July 31, 2017) (citing Memory Integrity, LLC v. Intel Corp., C.A. No. 13-1804-GMS, 2015 WL 632026, at *3 (D. Del. Feb. 13, 2015) (concluding that a non-practicing entity's choice of forum should receive limited deference because it had no physical presence in Delaware)). Consequently, Kroy's forum preference weighs slightly against transfer.
USR's choice of Delaware as a forum weighs in USR's favor, but not as strongly as it would if USR had a place of business in Delaware. See IpVenture, Inc. v. Acer, Inc., 879 F. Supp. 2d 426, 431 (D. Del. 2012); see also Symantec Corp. v. Zscaler, Inc., C.A. No. 17-806-MAK, D.I. 25 at 3-4 (D. Del. July 31, 2017) (citing Memory Integrity, LLC v. Intel Corp., C.A. No. 13-1804-GMS, 2015 WL 632026, at *3 (D. Del. Feb. 13, 2015) (concluding that a non-practicing entity's choice of forum should receive limited deference because it had no physical presence in Delaware)). Consequently, USR's forum preference weighs slightly against transfer.
Although the added cost of local counsel could make litigation here more expensive than in the proposed transferee court, this added cost weighs only slightly in favor of transfer, and does not outweigh the benefits to be gained by maintaining the co-pending cases together. See Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v. Lattice Semiconductor Corp., 126 F. Supp. 3d 430, 444 (D. Del. 2015) (citing IpVenture, Inc. v. Acer, Inc., 879 F. Supp. 2d 426, 433 (D. Del. 2012); Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Checkpoint Software Techs. Ltd., 797 F. Supp. 2d 472, 485 (D. Del. 2011); Affymetrix, Inc. v. Synteni, Inc., 28 F. Supp. 2d 192, 205-06 (D. Del. 1998)). Overall, this factor weighs slightly against transfer.
Defendant Altera does note that were the cases litigated in the transferee forum, it would eliminate the cost associated with local counsel in Delaware. (D.I. 12 at 17, Civil Action No. 15–162–LPS–CJB) Our Court has acknowledged this added cost as a practical consideration that could make litigation here more expensive than in a transferee court like the Northern District of California. SeeIpVenture, Inc. v. Acer, Inc., 879 F.Supp.2d 426, 433 (D.Del.2012); Affymetrix, 28 F.Supp.2d at 205–06. Under the circumstances, the Court finds that this added cost should render this factor in favor of transfer, but only slightly.
Accordingly, the fact that ILA is incorporated in Delaware has little bearing on this factor. See Wacoh Co., 845 F. Supp. 2d at 604 (finding public policy argument to be inapplicable where "the corporation that has chosen Delaware is not a Delaware corporation, and the corporations that might want to claim the benefits of being a Delaware corporation do not want to do so in this case."); cf. IPVenture, Inc. v. Acer, Inc., Civil Action No. 11-588-RGA, 2012 WL 3016958, at *8 (D. Del. July 24, 2012). For these reasons, the Court finds that this factor is neutral.
SeeRound Rock Research LLC v. Dell, Inc., 904 F.Supp.2d 374 (D.Del.2012). I previously granted transfer to the Northern District of California in a separate case against ASUSTeK and ACI. SeeIpVenture, Inc. v. Acer, Inc., 879 F.Supp.2d 426 (D.Del.2012). The jurisdictional issues were differently presented in that case.