Opinion
NO. 3-01-CV-2613-R
July 2, 2002
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Defendant Buca, Inc. has filed a motion to transfer this patent infringement case to a federal district court in Newark, New Jersey. For the reasons stated herein, the motion is denied.
I.
Plaintiff Nokia, Corp. holds various design patents on Nokia mobile phones and accessories, including replaceable face covers and batteries. (Plf. Orig. Compl. at 2-3, ¶¶ 9-16). These products are marketed and sold worldwide by Plaintiff Nokia, Inc. (Id. at 5, ¶ 18). By this suit, plaintiffs allege that competing products distributed and sold by defendant infringe on the Nokia design patents. (Id. at 5, ¶¶ 19-21).
The patents at issue are: (1) U.S. Design Patent 405, 785, issued February 16, 1999; (2) U.S. Design Patent 406, 583, issued March 9, 1999; (3) U.S. Design Patent 422, 597, issued April 11, 2000; (4) U.S. Design Patent 429, 491, issued August 15, 2000; (5) U.S. Design Patent 412, 484, issued August 3, 1999; (6) U.S. Design Patent 410, 623, issued June 8, 1999; (7) U.S. Design Patent 410, 892, issued June 15, 1999; (8) U.S. Design Patent 417, 428, issued December 7, 1999; and (9) U.S. Design Patent D450, 3165, issued November 13, 2001. (Plf. Orig. Compl. at 4, ¶ 17).
Defendant has filed a motion to transfer this case to the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404 (a). The motion has been fully briefed by the parties and is ripe for determination.
II.
A civil action not founded solely on diversity of citizenship must be brought in the judicial district where: (1) the defendant resides; (2) a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claim occurred; or (3) any defendant may be found if there is no district in which the action may otherwise be brought. 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (b). The court may also transfer a case to any other proper judicial district "for the convenience of the parties and witnesses or in the interest of justice." Id. § 1404(a). Relevant considerations include: (1) the availability and convenience of the witnesses and parties; (2) the availability of process to compel the attendance of unwilling witnesses; (3) the cost of obtaining attendance of witnesses; (4) the relative ease of access to sources of proof; (5) the place of the alleged wrong; (6) the possibility of delay and prejudice if the case is transferred; and (7) the plaintiffs right to choose its forum. See State Street Capital Corp. v. Dente, 855 F. Supp. 192, 197 (S.D. Tex. 1994); Dupre v. Spanier Marine Corp., 810 F. Supp. 823, 825 (S.D. Tex. 1993). The plaintiff has the initial burden proving that his chosen venue is proper. Seariver Maritime Financial Holdings, Inc. v. Pena, 952 F. Supp. 455, 458 (S.D. Tex. 1996). However, the defendant must demonstrate that the balance of convenience and justice weighs heavily in favor of transfer. State Street Capital, 855 F. Supp. at 197.
Defendant does not argue that venue is improper in the Northern District of Texas. Rather, it maintains that this case should be transferred to New Jersey for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and "in the interest of justice." In support of its motion, defendant has submitted the declaration of Sam Cohen, President of Buca, Inc. Cohen explains that Buca is a relatively small company doing business in Neptune, New Jersey. (Cohen Decl. at 2, ¶ 1). All documents related to the sale of products in dispute are located at Buca's New Jersey headquarters. (Id. at 2, ¶ 3). In addition, Cohen points out that defendant's key witnesses, including himself, his brother Jason, and another Buca employee, all reside in the New Jersey area. (Id. at 2, ¶ 4). Cohen states that "[d]efendant cannot compel these witnesses to testify in Texas, and thus [d]efendant's case would be prejudiced if it was tried in Texas." (Id. at 3, ¶ 5). Based on this evidence, and the fact that the alleged infringement occurred in New Jersey, defendant contends that it would be more convenient to litigate this dispute in that forum.
The Court initially notes that plaintiffs' decision to file suit in the Northern District of Texas is entitled to substantial deference and "should not be lightly disturbed." See National Group Underwriters, Inc. v. Southern Security Life Ins. Co., 2001 WL 1478800 at 2 (N.D. Tex. Nov. 19, 2001), quoting Young v. Armstrong World Indus., Inc., 601 F. Supp. 399, 401 (N.D. Tex. 1984). Additionally, all discovery to date has been conducted in the New York area with little or no inconvenience or added expense to the parties. Defendant has failed to establish that it would be easier or more cost-effective to litigate this matter in New Jersey rather than Texas. Nor has defendant shown that a transfer is necessary to obtain process to compel the attendance of reluctant witnesses. In fact, the only witnesses identified by defendant are its own employees. See American Airlines, Inc. v. Rogerson ATS, 952 F. Supp. 377, 384 (N.D. Tex. 1996) ("[TIhe moving party must do more than make a general allegation that certain key witnesses are not available or are inconveniently located."). Finally, although defendant distributes and sells products from its headquarters in New Jersey, those products are sold and offered for sale to Texas residents.
In sum, defendant has failed to prove that the balance of convenience and justice weighs heavily in favor of transfer. While it may be more convenient for defendant to litigate this action in New Jersey, a transfer is not appropriate where the only justification is to shift the balance of inconveniences from one party to another. National Group Underwriters, 2001 WL 1478800 at *1; Dupre, 810 E.Supp. at 826. Accordingly, defendant's motion to transfer venue is denied.
SO ORDERED.