Home -> Law Blog Directory -> Federal Judiciary Blogs -> Eastern District of Texas Federal Court Practice

Federal Judiciary

: Eastern District of Texas Federal Court Practice

Patent Case Transferred to California, Citing Location of Defendants and Witnesses

By Michael C. Smith

Software Archives v. Google, 2:07cv511

Judge: Chad Everingham

Holding: Motion to Tranfer Venue GRANTED

Judge Everingham just granted the defendants' motion to transfer this case to the Northern District of California, finding that the balance of the public and private factors showed that court to be "clearly more convenient" than the venue chosen by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff is a company with its principal place of business in Marshall, while three of the defendants are from California, one from Virginia and one from Massachusetts.  Judge Everingham noted that while the location of witnesses and documents weighed in favor of transfer, the defendants' delay in filing the motion (fifteen months after the case was filed) weighed heavily against transfer, but noted that the motion was still filed well in advance of claim construction and trial.  With respect to the public interest factors, the Court noted that there were substantial ND Cailfornia ties to the case, including the offices of three of the defendants, and discounted the plaintiff's establishing an office in Marshall in 2007, citing the Federal Circuit's recent holding in In re Zimmer that the plaintiff's status as a corporation was not entitled to significant weight because its presence appeared "to be both recent and ephemeral."

Judge Everingham summarized his findings as follows:

The Northern District of California is ?clearly more convenient? than the Eastern District of Texas. Although the judicial economy factor strongly weighs against transfer, the location of sources of proof strongly favors transfer, the cost of attendance of willing witnesses and local interest favor transfer, and the availability of compulsory process slightly favors transfer. This court has previously denied late-filed motions to transfer venue on account of judicial economy and the interests of justice. This case is distinguishable from Novartis Vaccines & Diagnostics, Inc. v. Wyeth and eTool Development, Inc. v. National Semiconductor Corp., however, because the present motion to transfer was filed shortly after TS Tech was decided, and the motion was filed after the defendants had filed a motion challenging standing, the disposition of which logically preceded the venue determination. In addition, several of the parties are headquartered in the proposed transferee forum. Finally, it bears mention that during the pendency of the present motion, the Federal Circuit issued a number of decisions that were contrary to the arguments advanced by the plaintiff in opposition to the motion.

(Internal citations omitted).

Full post as published by Eastern District of Texas Federal Court Practice on July 22, 2010 (boomark / email).