Opinion
Civ. No. 99-3096, SECTION "T" (2).
February 10, 2000.
This cause came for hearing on a previous date upon the Motion of the Defendants to Transfer Venue. The Court, having studied the record, the applicable law and the memoranda submitted by the parties, is now fully advised in the premises and ready to rule.
ORDER AND REASONS
I. BACKGROUND
On May 27, 1997, U.S. Patent No. 5,632,060 ("the `060 Patent") — Vacuum Cleaner with Agitation Member Drive Belt Access Panel — was isssued to Bissell, Inc. ("Bissell") in Grand Rapids, Michigan. Bissell assigned the patent to Oreck Holdings, L.L.C. ("Oreck"). Oreck has since filed suit in the Eastern District of Louisiana, alleging Bissell's infringement of the `060 Patent by manufacturing and selling the Bissell Powersteamer ProHeat Plus. The defendant Bissell now moves to transfer venue to the Western District of Michigan.
II. ANALYSIS
Any civil action for patent infringement may be brought in the judicial district where the defendent resides, or where the defendent has committed acts of infringement and has an established place of business. 28 U.S.C. § 1400 (b). However, the court has the discretion to transfer a civil action to any district where it may have been brought for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. 28 U.S.C. § 1404 (a).
For purposes of this lawsuit, venue would be proper in the Western District of Michigan because the Defendant's principle place of business is in Western District of Michigan. Venue would also be proper in the Eastern District of Louisiana because Defendant has conceded that venue is proper in this judicial district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (a), (b), and (c) and/or 1400 (b). Thus, this Court has discretion to transfer the case.
In support of a transfer, Bissell cites two cases holding that in patent-infringement cases the preferred forum is that which is the center of the gravity of the accused activity. See Laitram Corp. v. Morehouse Indus., Inc., 31 U.S.P.Q.2d 1697 (E.D. La. Mar. 21, 1994); Teknekron Software Sys., Inc., v. Cornell Univ., No. 93-201 22 SW (N.D. Cal. June 14, 1993) (order granting motion to transfer). "Examination of the "center of gravity" cases, however, reveals that the test is generally applied in cases in which the plaintiff does not bring suit in its home forum."Optima, Inc. v. Republic Industries, Inc., No. 94-3919 at *3 (E.D. La. Feb. 21, 1995) (order denying motion to transfer venue). In cases where the plaintiff has chosen a foreign forum their choice of forum is afforded less deference. See Ricoh Co. v. Honeywell, Inc., 817 F. Supp. 473, 480 (D.N.J. 1993). Therefore, since the Plaintiff has brought suit in its home forum, the "center of gravity" analysis does not apply.
The burden is on the defendants to demonstrate why the case should be transferred to a different forum. Time, Inc. v. Manning, 366 F.2d 690, 698 (5th Cir. 1966). "Plaintiffs privilege to choose, or not to be ousted from, his chosen forum is highly esteemed." Id., quoting Rodriguez v. Pan American Life Ins. Co., 311 F.2d 429, 434 (5th Cir. 1962). However, the decision to transfer a pending case is committed to the sound discretion of the district court. Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 84 S.Ct. 805, 11 L.Ed.2d 945 (1964); Peteet v. Dow Chemical Co., 868 F.2d 1428 (5th Cir. 1989); Sonic Drive-In of Alexandria v. Dronet, 968 F. Supp. 303 (E.D.La. 1997). The trial court must consider "all relevant factors to determine whether or not on balance the litigation would more conveniently proceed and the interests of justice be better served by transfer to a different forum."Sonic, 968 F. Supp. at 304 (quoting Wright Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure, § 2847, at 340 (1986)).
The convenience of the parties and witnesses and the availability of documentary evidence are some of the other factors a district court must consider in resolving whether to grant a motion to transfer. Crosfield Hastech, 672 F. Supp. 580, 589 (D.N.H. 1987). A transfer is not appropriate if it would merely shift inconvenience from the defendant to the plaintiff.Id. Unless the balance of all the factors "is strongly in favor of the defendant, the plaintiffs choice of forum should rarely be disturbed." Id., quoting Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U.S. 501, 508 (1947).
The Defendant has failed to demonstrate that the plaintiffs choice of forum was due to forum shopping. The Eastern District of Louisiana is Oreck' s corporate headquarters and principle place of business. Witnesses and documents relevant to the case can be found in both Louisiana and Michigan. Thus, the transfer of this case to the Western District of Michigan would solely shift the inconvenience of where the trial is to take place from one party to another. See Joslyn Manufacturing Co. v. Amerace Corp., 729 F. Supp. 1219 (N.D. Ill. 1990). Bissell has failed to assert any reason why litigating in the Eastern District of Louisiana would present any exceptional inconveniences that would overcome the Plaintiffs choice of forum. Therefore, this Court finds the interests of the parties, witnesses, and justice would not be better served by transferring this action to the Western District of Michigan.
III. CONCLUSION
The Court has extensively reviewed the record and the memoranda of the parties. The Court believes that to transfer the venue of this trial to the Western District of Michigan would merely shift the inconvenience of the trial to the Plaintiff.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED that Defendant's motion to transfer venue is hereby DENIED.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 10th day of February, 2000.
MINUTE ENTRY FEBRUARY 11, 2000 SCHWARTZ, J.