Wacoh Co. v. Kionix Inc.

40 Citing cases

  1. Pragmatus AV, LLC v. Yahoo! Inc.

    Civil Action No. 11-902-LPS-CJB (D. Del. Oct. 15, 2012)   Cited 17 times
    Finding - in similarly considering Defendant's incorporation in Delaware, but preference to litigate elsewhere - "the appropriate place to focus in examining this factor is not on the forum that a defendant does not prefer . . . , but on the forum it does prefer"

    prefers to litigate in the Northern District. Just as it has done in examining the plaintiff's choice of forum, when analyzing a defendant's forum preference, our Court has tended to examine whether the defendant can articulate rational, legitimate reasons to support that preference. See, e.g., Affymetrix, 28 F. Supp. 2d at 201. Here, Yahoo! argues that it has a number of such reasons for seeking to transfer the case to the Northern District, including: (1) Yahoo !'s principal place of business is located in that District; and (2) the majority of its employees with knowledge relevant to the issues in this case are located there. (D.I. 29 at 7-8) This Court has found such reasons to be legitimate bases for seeking to transfer a suit to a particular district, and I too agree that they are. See, e.g., Microsoft Corp. v. Geotag Inc., 847 F. Supp. 2d 675, 678 (D. Del. 2012); Wacoh Co. v. Kionix Inc., 845 F. Supp. 2d 597, 602 (D. Del. 2012); Altera, 842 F. Supp. 2d at 755. Pragmatus argues that Yahoo!'s preference should nevertheless be given little weight.

  2. 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"

    There are several legitimate reasons to support that preference, which include: (1) Roxane's principal place of business and research and development center are located in that forum (in Columbus, Ohio), (D.I. 1 at ¶ 2; Miller Decl. at ¶ 1); (2) Roxane oversaw the development and manufacturing of its ANDA product in its Columbus, Ohio facilities (Miller Decl. at ¶ 2); (3) Roxane employees who were involved in the development of its ANDA product are located in Columbus, Ohio (id.); and (4) many of Roxane's documents relating to its ANDA and its ANDA product are located in Columbus, Ohio (id. at ¶¶ 3, 5). See, e.g., Fuisz, 2012 WL 1820642, at *12; Microsoft Corp. v. Geotag Inc, 847 F. Supp. 2d 675, 678 (D. Del. 2012); Wacoh Co. v.Kionix Inc, 845 F. Supp. 2d 597, 602 (D. Del. 2012). This factor weighs in favor of transfer.

  3. Realtime Adaptive Streaming LLC v. Netflix, Inc.

    Civil Action No. 17-1692-JFB-SRF (D. Del. Oct. 12, 2018)

    "The public policy of Delaware encourages the use by Delaware corporations of Delaware as a forum for resolution of business disputes." Graphics Props. Holdings Inc. v. ASUS Comput. Int'l, Inc., 964 F. Supp. 2d 320, 331 (D. Del. 2013) (quoting Wacoh Co. v. Kionix Inc., 845 F. Supp. 2d 597, 604 n.9 (D. Del. 2012)). "Delaware promotes itself as a place that entities should choose as their corporate home, and in doing so, touts itself as a forum well-positioned to help resolve business disputes." Kraft Foods Grp. Brands LLC v. TC Heartland, LLC, C.A. No. 14-28-LPS, 2015 WL 4778828, at *15 (D. Del. Aug. 13, 2015) (citing Wacoh, 845 F. Supp. 2d at 604 n.9 (D. Del. 2012)). Because Netflix is a Delaware corporation, this factor weighs against transfer.

  4. Kroy IP Holdings, LLC v. Groupon, Inc.

    Civil Action No. 17-1405-MN-SRF (D. Del. Oct. 9, 2018)

    "The public policy of Delaware encourages the use by Delaware corporations of Delaware as a forum resolution of business disputes." Graphics Props. Holdings Inc. v. Asus Computer Int'l, Inc., 964 F. Supp. 2d 320, 331 (D. Del. 2013) (quoting Wacoh Co. v. Kionix Inc., 845 F. Supp. 2d 597, 609 n.9 (D. Del. 2012)). "Delaware promotes itself as a place that entities should choose as their corporate home, and in doing so, touts itself as a forum well-positioned to help resolve business disputes." Kraft Foods Grp. Brands LLC v. TC Heartland LLC, C.A. No., 2015 WL 4778828, at *15 (D. Del. Aug. 13, 2015) (citing Wacoh Co. v. Kionix Inc., 845 F. Supp. 2d 597, 609 n.9 (D. Del. 2012)).

  5. Blackbird Tech LLC v. Cloudflare, Inc.

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 17-283 (D. Del. Oct. 11, 2017)   Cited 4 times

    Nonetheless, courts have recognized that infringement claims arise, to some extent, where the allegedly infringing products are designed and manufactured. Id. (citing Wacoh Co. v. Kionix, Inc., 845 F. Supp. 2d 597, 602 (D. Del. 2012)). Therefore, even if the allegedly infringing products are sold nationwide, where at least some of the research and development activities relating to those products occurred in the proposed transferee district, the "location of operative events" factor will weigh in favor of transfer.

  6. Cruise Control Techs. LLC v. Chrysler Grp. LLC

    Civil Action No. 12-1761-GMS (D. Del. Mar. 31, 2014)   Cited 7 times
    Finding that this factor favored transfer where the proposed transferee district's median time to trial in a civil case was 6.5 months less than in this District

    Regarding where the claim arose, while patent infringement claims arise wherever someone has committed acts of infringement, see, e.g., Cellectis S.A. v. Precision Biosciences, Inc., 858 F. Supp. 2d 376, 381 (D. Del. 2012), "infringement claims have even deeper roots in the forum where the accused products were developed." Linex Technologies, Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., No. 11-400-GMS, 2013 WL 105323, at *4 (D. Del. Jan. 7, 2013); see also Smart Audio Techs., 910 F. Supp. 2d at 730; Wacoh Co. v. Kionix, Inc., 845 F. Supp. 2d 597, 602 (D. Del. 2012). The Defendants' arguments in favor of the claim having arose in the Eastern District of Michigan are convincing. First, as the Defendants point out, all of the Defendants are either headquartered in the Eastern District of Michigan and/or operate their research and development facilities there. (D.I. 16 in 12-1755 at 3; D.I. 1 in 12-1761 at ¶ 4; D.I. 16 at Ex. 3 & 4 in 12-1758; D.I. 14 at 2 in 13-0085; D.I. 14 at 2 in 13-0086; D.I. 20 at 2-3 and D.I. 22 at 3 in 13-0087.)

  7. 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.

  8. Ross v. Institutional Longevity Assets LLC

    Civil Action No. 12-102-LPS-CJB (D. Del. Sep. 20, 2013)   Cited 8 times
    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

    (D.I. 44 at 8) Though the Court recognizes Delaware's policy of encouraging Delaware corporations to use the courts of this State as a forum for resolving disputes, that policy has typically been considered most relevant to a transfer analysis where the parties on both sides of the dispute were Delaware corporations, or at least the party bringing suit was a Delaware corporation. See, e.g., Intellectual Ventures I LLC, 842 F. Supp. 2d at 760 (dispute among Delaware entities); Wacoh Co. v. Kionix lnc, 845 F. Supp. 2d 597, 604 (D. Del. 2012) (noting limitation of policy where plaintiff is not a Delaware corporation). Here, it is only ILA that is a Delaware entity and it has expressed its choice not to avail itself of Delaware as a forum.

  9. Mitel Networks Corp. v. Facebook, Inc.

    943 F. Supp. 2d 463 (D. Del. 2013)   Cited 32 times
    Finding factor neutral where defendant failed to demonstrate third-party witnesses would be unavailable in the forum

    Importantly, however, the court has recognized that “[t]o some extend, [infringement] claims ar[i]se where the allegedly infringing products [a]re designed and manufactured.” Smart Audio Techs., 910 F.Supp.2d at 730–31 (quoting Wacoh Co. v. Kionix, Inc., 845 F.Supp.2d 597, 602 (D.Del.2012)). Here, Facebook argues that this factor should weigh in favor of transfer because the “design, development, and engineering of the majority of Facebook's source code and services occurred in Menlo Park, California,” “Facebook's source code is also accessible and ultimate[ly] managed from Menlo Park,” and “Facebook maintains no facilities in Delawareand is aware of no development or engineering efforts relating to the accused product that occurred there.”

  10. AIP Acquisition LLC v. iBasis, Inc.

    Civil Action No. 12-616 GMS (D. Del. Oct. 19, 2012)   Cited 16 times

    The court also recognizes, however, that "[t]o some extent, the claims ar[i]se where the allegedly infringing products [a]re designed and manufactured." Wacoh Co. v. Kionix, Inc., 845 F. Supp. 2d 597, 602 (D. Del. 2012). Since the products relevant to this litigation "were designed and developed primarily in Massachusetts," the court finds that this factor weighs slightly in favor of transfer. (D.I. 11 at 13.)