Helferich Patent Licensing LLC v. Suns Legacy Partners LLC

Filing 164

ORDER denying Plaintiff's Motion to Change Venue (Doc. 133). FURTHER ORDERED that the parties file a joint proposed Revised Case Management Schedule by 2/20/12. FURTHER ORDERED that in the Revised Case Management Schedule, all deadlines for briefing regarding claim construction shall be suspended until claim construction is complete in the related case in the Northern District of Illinois. See Order for details. Signed by Judge Neil V. Wake on 2-5-13.(NRB)

1

WO

2
3
4
5
6

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

8
9

Helferich Patent Licensing, LLC,
Plaintiff,

10
11

Lead No. CV-11-2304-PHX-NVW
CONSOLIDATED WITH

vs.

12

Suns Legacy Partners, LLC,

13

Defendant.
Helferich Patent Licensing, LLC,

14

Plaintiff,

15
16
17
18
19

vs.
Phoenix Newspapers, Inc.,
Defendant.
Helferich Patent Licensing, LLC,

22
23

No. CV-12-0100-PHX-NVW

Plaintiff,

20
21

No. CV-11-2476-PHX-NVW

vs.
NBA Properties, Inc., et al.,
Defendants.
Helferich Patent Licensing, LLC,

No. CV-12-0060-PHX-NVW

24
Plaintiff,

25
26
27
28

vs.

ORDER

Nissan Motor Co., Ltd., et al.,
Defendants.

1

Before the Court is Plaintiff Helferich Patent Licensing’s Motion to Transfer

2

Venue (Doc. 133), Defendants’ Response, and the Reply. For the following reasons, the

3

Court will deny the Motion.

4

Helferich Patent Licensing (“Helferich”) moves to transfer this action to the

5

Northern District of Illinois pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Section 1404(a) provides

6

that “[f]or the convenience of the parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district

7

court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have

8

been brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Because Helferich requested the transfer, it has the

9

burden of showing that the transfer is appropriate under § 1404(a). See Jones v. GNC

10

Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d 495, 499 (9th Cir. 2000).

11

To meet that burden, Helferich must show that that the Northern District of Illinois

12

is a district where the case “might have been brought.” A district where the action

13

“might have been brought” is one having subject matter jurisdiction over the controversy,

14

where the defendants are subject to personal jurisdiction, and where venue is proper.

15

Hoffman v. Blaski, 363 U.S. 335, 343–44 (1960). Most pertinent to this case is the

16

requirement that defendants be subject to personal jurisdiction in the district to which the

17

case is to be transferred.

18

Defendants—Phoenix Newspapers, Inc., and Midway Holdings, LLC (“the Arizona

19

Defendants”)—are not subject to personal jurisdiction in the Northern District of Illinois

20

such that it is not a district in which this action “might have been brought.” Defendants

21

do not dispute that the remaining defendants would be subject to personal jurisdiction in

22

Illinois.

Defendants claim that the two remaining Arizona-based

23

In patent cases, Federal Circuit law applies to a determination of personal

24

jurisdiction “because the jurisdictional issue is intimately involved with the substance of

25

the patent laws.” Avocent Huntsville Corp. v. Aten Int'l Co., 552 F.3d 1324, 1328 (Fed.

26

Cir. 2008). There is a two-step inquiry to determine whether personal jurisdiction is

27

proper over an out-of-state defendant: (1) whether a forum state's long-arm statute

28

permits service of process; and (2) whether assertion of personal jurisdiction violates due
-2 

1

process. Grober v. Mako Products, Inc., 686 F.3d 1335, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Illinois

2

and federal due process limitations are coextensive, be2 LLC v. Ivanov, 642 F.3d 555,

3

558 (7th Cir. 2011), so the inquiry collapses into whether the exercise of personal

4

jurisdiction comports with due process. Grober, 686 F.3d at 1345. The Due Process

5

Clause is satisfied if a defendant has minimum contacts with a forum state such that

6

requiring him to defend against a lawsuit in that state “does not offend traditional notions

7

of fair play and substantial justice.” See International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S.

8

310, 316 (1945).

9

General jurisdiction is not at issue in this Motion, as Helferich asserts only that

10

Defendants are subject to specific personal jurisdiction in Illinois. “Specific jurisdiction

11

. . . must be based on activities that arise out of or relate to the cause of action, and can

12

exist even if the defendant's contacts are not continuous and systematic.” Autogenomics,

13

Inc. v. Oxford Gene Tech. Ltd., 566 F.3d 1012, 1017 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (citation omitted).

14

The Federal Circuit applies a three-prong test to determine if specific jurisdiction exists:

15

(1) whether the defendant purposefully directed activities at residents of the forum; (2)

16

whether the claim arises out of or relates to those activities; and (3) whether assertion of

17

personal jurisdiction is reasonable and fair. Nuance Commc’ns, Inc. v. Abbyy Software

18

House, 626 F.3d 1222, 1231 (Fed. Cir. 2010).

19

The question of whether the Northern District of Illinois can exercise personal

20

jurisdiction over the Arizona Defendants will turn on the first prong of this test: whether

21

the Arizona Defendants purposefully directed activities at Illinois residents. Helferich

22

argues that the infringement allegations against all Defendants are based directly on

23

interactive communications over the internet that Defendants, including the Arizona

24

Defendants, caused to be sent to Illinois and every other state. Defendants’ electronic

25

communications to subscribers in Illinois via text messaging programs and social media

26

websites, according to Helferich, involve “intentional use of these electronic channels

27

that are national in scope, and which certainly reach Chicago.”

28
-3 

(Doc. 148 at 6.)

1

Helferich contends that the reach of those electronic communications into Illinois is

2

sufficient to establish specific personal jurisdiction in that state.

3

Whether electronic communications sent to subscribers and followers in a forum

4

state represent activities purposefully directed at residents of that state depends on

5

whether the defendant deliberately targets those residents. be2, 642 F.3d at 559. “Courts

6

should be careful in resolving questions about personal jurisdiction involving online

7

contacts to ensure that a defendant is not haled into court simply because the defendant

8

owns or operates a website that is accessible in the forum state, even if that site is

9

‘interactive.’” Id. at 558 (quoting Illinois v. Hemi Group, LLC, 622 F.3d 754, 760 (7th

10

Cir. 2010)). So to be subject to specific personal jurisdiction, a defendant must do more

11

than simply operate a website that is accessible from the forum state: “a defendant must

12

in some way target the forum state’s market.” Id. at 559.

13

Here, Helferich has not presented any evidence that the Arizona Defendants

14

deliberately target the Illinois market with the allegedly infringing electronic messages.

15

Rather, the evidence Defendants have presented suggests that the Arizona Defendants do

16

not use their online content or their social media activities to target the Illinois market.

17

The Arizona Defendants Facebook pages and Twitter accounts, while interactive, are all

18

informational in nature and function more like broad national advertising campaigns than

19

activities targeted at any particular state: such a campaign is not itself sufficient for

20

exercising personal jurisdiction. See Sweetgreen, Inc. v. Sweet Leaf, Inc., No. 11-CV-

21

0859, 2012 WL 975415 (D.D.C. Mar. 23, 2012) (citing Miller Yacht Sales, Inc. v. Smith,

22

384 F.3d 93, 106 (3d. Cir. 2004)).

23

The Arizona Defendants have no reason to advertise or promote their businesses to

24

Illinois residents, and Helferich has presented no evidence that they do so any more than

25

to residents of any other state. The electronic communications in question are not

26

deliberately targeted at the residents of Illinois, so the Arizona Defendants “may not be

27

haled into court in that state without offending the Constitution.” be2, 642 F.3d at 559.

28

The fact that some residents of Illinois may sign up for and receive electronic
-4 

1

communications from the Arizona Defendants can represent only “attenuated contacts.”

2

Id. The Arizona Defendants do not deliberately target their online content at the Illinois

3

market, and so cannot be subject to personal jurisdiction there “without offending

4

traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.” Id.

5

There would be obvious judicial economy and economy to the litigants if these

6

consolidated cases were processed and tried together with substantively identical claims

7

in the Northern District of Illinois, Helferich Patent Licensing, LLC v. New York Times

8

Company, No. 1:10-cv-04387. But without a showing that all of the Defendants are

9

subject to personal jurisdiction in the transferee forum, Helferich cannot establish that the

10

Northern District of Illinois is a district in which this action might have been brought. As

11

a result, Helferich has failed to meet its burden of showing that transfer is available under

12

§ 1404(a), and the case cannot be transferred.

13

Nevertheless, this Court will manage these cases in a manner that minimizes the

14

inefficiency of conducting parallel proceedings.

15

District of Illinois are advancing on a faster track and important stages of the litigation,

16

including claim construction, will be concluded there first.

17

management schedule for these cases will be modified to enable the Court to process this

18

litigation as quickly and efficiently as possible with the benefit of the rulings from the

19

related cases in the Northern District of Illinois. With the aid of those rulings, to which

20

this Court will give due consideration, the parties will avoid some of the duplicative

21

burden and expense of re-litigating claims in both forums.

22
23
24

The related cases in the Northern

As a result, the case

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Transfer Venue (Doc.
133) is DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties file a joint proposed Revised Case

25

Management Schedule by February 20, 2012.

26

deadlines for discovery that mirror and promptly trail similar deadlines set in the

27

proceedings in the Northern District of Illinois, Helferich Patent Licensing, LLC v. New

28

York Times Company, No. 1:10-CV-04387 and related cases.
-5 

The Revised Schedule shall include

1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that in the Revised Case Management Schedule, all

2

deadlines for briefing regarding claim construction shall be suspended until claim

3

construction is complete in the related cases in the Northern District of Illinois, with

4

briefing in light of that claim construction to follow the decision promptly.

5

Dated this 5th day of February, 2013.

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
-6