Gametek LLC v. Gameview Studios, LLC

Filing 47

ORDER Granting 21 Motion to Change Venue. Case transferred to District of California - Northern. Original file, certified copy of transfer order, and docket sheet sent. Signed by Judge Roger T. Benitez on 12/4/2012. (All non-registered users served via U.S. Mail Service)(knb)

1
2

12 DEC -4 AM 9: 45

3
.

4

~':, ;..l"¥~

.. ','.... .

_,p

~'~,

:

5

BEPUTY

6

7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

GAMETEK LLC,

12

CASE NO. 12-CV-00499 BEN (RBB)
Plaintiff,

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO
TRANSFER VENUE TO THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF
CALIFORNIA

vs.

13
14
15
16

GAMEVIEW STUDIOS, LLC,
[Docket No. 21]
Defendant.
Presently before the Court is Defendant Gameview Studios, LLC' s Motion to Transfer Venue

17

to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. (Docket No. 21.) For the

18
19

reasons stated below, the Motion to Transfer Venue is GRANTED.

20

BACKGROUND
Gameview Studios, LLC ("Gameview") is a Delaware corporation, which has a single office

21

in the United States in Mountain View, California. GameTek, LLC ("GameTek") is a limited liability

22

company with its sole office in Newport Beach, California. GameTek filed a Complaint against

23
24

Gameview on February 28, 2012, alleging infringement ofU.S. Patent No. 7,076,445 (the '445 Patent).

25
26

DISCUSSION
"For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may
transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought or to any

27

district or division to which all parties have consented." 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). In deciding whether

28

to transfer an action under § 1404(a), a court must determine: (1) whether the transferee district is a
- 1-

12cv00499

district in which the action "might have been brought," and (2) whether the action should be
2

transferred for purposes of convenience, judicial economy, or in the interest ofjustice. Van Dusen v.

3

Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 616 (1964).

4

I.

5

To qualify as a district in which the action might have been brought, the transferee court must

6

"(1) be able to exercise personal jurisdiction over the defendants, (2) have subject matter jurisdiction

7

over the claim, and (3) be a proper forum." Albertson v. Monumental Life Ins. Co., No. C-08-05441,

8

2009 WL 3870301, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 16,2009).

9

WHERE THE ACTION "MIGHT HAVE BEEN BROUGHT"

First, Gameview has an office in Mountain View, California, and is therefore subject to the

10 jurisdiction of the Northern District of California. Second, district courts have exclusive jurisdiction
11

over patent matters based on 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a). Third, the Northern District of California is a

12

proper venue for this action, as discussed below. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391 (b)(2) (a civil action may be

13

brought in "a judicial district in which a substantial part ofthe events or omissions giving rise to the

14

claim occurred, or a substantial part of property that is the subject ofthe action is situated").

15

II.

16

Next, the Court must determine whether the "convenience of the parties and witnesses" and

17

CONVENIENCE, JUDICIAL ECONOMY, AND THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE

the "interest ofjustice" compel transferring venue. Factors relevant to that determination include:

18

19
20

(1) the plaintiffs choice of forum, (2) convenience to the parties, (3) convenience to
the witnesses, (4) ease of access to the evidence, (5) familiarity of each forum with the
applicable law, (6) the feasability of consolidation with and relationship to other
claims, (7) any local interest in the controversy, and (8) the relative court congestion
and time of trial in each forum.

21

22

Albertson, 2009 WL 3870301, at *1 (citingJonesv. GNC Franchising, Inc., 211 F.3d495, 498-99 (9th

23

Cir.2000)).

24

A.

Plaintiff's Choice of Forum

25

GameTek's choice ofthe Southern District of California as the forum is entitled to deference.

26

However, courts have held that when a plaintiff brings suit in ajurisdiction that is not its location of

27

residence and lacks significant connection to the alleged infringement, the deference is substantially

28

reduced. See Inherent v. Martindale-Hubbell, 420 F. Supp. 2d 1093, 1100 (N.D. CaL 2006).

-2-

12cv00499

I

GameTek is not located in the Southern District of California and this forum lacks significant

2

connection to the alleged infringement. Therefore, while there is some deference to be accorded to

3

GameTek's choice offorum, this choice only slightly favors retaining the case in the Southern District

4

of California.

5

B.

Convenience to the Witnesses

6

The convenience to the witnesses favors transfer to the Northern District of California. "To

7

show inconvenience to witnesses, the moving party should state the witnesses' identities, locations,

8

and content and relevance oftheir testimony." Meyer Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. Telebrands Corp., No. CIV.

9

S-11-3153, 2012 WL 1189765, at *6 (E.D. Cal. Apr. 9, 2012)

10

Gameview's U.S. headquarters is in the Northern District ofCalifornia. Those persons within

11

their employ who are most knowledgeable, and the majority ofother employees with knowledge, will

12

be located in the Northern District of California. Gameview states in its Motion that it is likely to rely

13

on testimony from its employees "for a variety of topics, including the functionality of the accused

14

products, Gameview's marketing of the accused products, and the relative value of features of the

15

accused products, and the revenue that the accused products generate." (Mot. at 6.)

16

In addition, Gameview has identified two former employees, Rizwan Virk and Mitch Liu, who

17

"have knowledge about the development, functionality, and marketing ofthe accused products and are

18

likely to be called as witnesses in this case." (ld.; Virk Decl. -,r 12.) Both ofthese witnesses reside and

19

are employed in the Northern District of California, and it would be more convenient for them if the

20

case were transferred. (Virk Decl. , 12.) GameTek argues that Gameview has not identified why these

21

potential witrIesses are relevant, but Gameview clearly states in its Motion that these two former

22

employees may be required to give testimony because they "have knowledge about the development,

23

functionality, and marketing ofthe accused products." (Mot. at 6.)

24

Both parties agree that other relevant witnesses, the inventor of the '445 Patent and the

25

attorneys who prosecuted the '445 Patent, are all located outside of California, and their attendance

26

would be equally inconvenient whether the case was tried in the Southern District or the Northern

27

District of California. Further, GameTek does not argue that any of its own witrIesses would be

28

inconvenienced by transfer to the Northern District of California. Instead, it incorrectly argues that

-3-

12cv00499

1 Gameview has not met its burden of showing inconvenience. Indeed, Gameview has met its burden
2

of showing inconvenience to witnesses, and this factor weighs in favor of transfer.

3

C.

Ease of Access to the Evidence

4

Ease ofaccess to the evidence favors transfer to the Northern District of California. "In patent

5

infringement cases, the bulk of the relevant evidence usually comes from the accused infringer.

6

Consequently, the place where the defendant's documents are kept weighs in favor of transfer to that

7

location." In re Genentech, Inc., 566 F.3d 1338, 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (internal quotation marks

8

omitted).

9

Gameview states that its headquarters is located in the Northern District of California and its

10

computers, servers, source code, and other documentation are either located in, or can be most easily

11

accessed from, within the Northern District of California. (Virk Decl. , 8.) Gameview further notes

12

that its interaction with customers, and development ofproducts all occurred in the Northern District

13

of California. (Mot. at 8.)

14

GameTek argues that because its documents are in Newport Beach, the Southern District of

15

California is more convenient in terms of ease of access to its evidence. Gameview questions the

16

amount ofdocuments that GameTek would present as evidence, and contrasts this with the potentially

17

large amount of evidence to be produced by Gameview. Though it is unclear from these initial

18

contentions the volume of evidence that will be produced by both sides, it does seem clear that the

19

center of gravity of this dispute is where Gameview is located, which is the Northern District of

20

California. Accordingly, ease of access to the evidence weighs in favor of transfer.

21

D.

Feasibility of Consolidation

22

Feasibility ofconsolidation is neutral. GameTek has brought suit against four other defendants

23

in this court, asserting the same patent. GameTek states that the four cases have been "de facto

24

consolidated," as the cases all share the same schedule. GameTek further argues that if the present

25

case were to be transferred, there could be conflicting rulings between the two courts, and would also

26

result in "duplication ofjudicial efforts relative to the many common issues (e.g., claim construction,

27

infringement and validity) pertinent to the patent-in-suit." (Opp. at 10.)

28

In response, Gameview argues that even iftransfer is denied, there is minimal gain in judicial

-4-

12cv00499

1 efficiency because its accused products were developed and behave independently of any other
2

defendant, so its position is likely to diverge from those of the other defendants. Alternatively,

3

Gameview argues that even ifthere was judicial inefficiency from granting transfer, there are a number

4

of ways it can be minimized, namely staying proceedings and consolidating through multidistrict

5

litigation under 28 U.S.C. § 1407. Finally, Gameview argues that denying transfer based on ease of

6

consolidation effectively circumvents the purpose ofthe newly enacted joinder restrictions for patent

7

infringement suits under 35 U.S.C. § 299.

8

This Court disagrees with GameTek's contention that the cases have been "de facto

9

consolidated," as no determination regarding consolidation has been made; simply having a similar

10

schedule does not amount to "de facto consolidation." Further, this Court agrees that denying transfer

11· based on ease of consolidation would indeed serve to render the new joinder restrictions obsolete.
12

13

Accordingly, this factor does not support denying transfer.

E.

Local Interest in the Controversy

14

The local interest in the controversy favors transfer to the Northern District of California. As

15

stated earlier, Gameview is located in the Northern District of California, and GameTek is located in

16

the Central District ofCalifornia. As neither party is located in the Southern District ofCalifornia and

17

Gameview is located in the Northern District of California, this factor favors transfer.

18

F.

Remaining Factors Are Neutral

19

The remaining factors-convenience to the parties, familiarity ofeach forum with the law, and

20

court congestion and time to trial-are neutral. Both parties are equally inconvenienced by the other's

21

choice of forum, each forum has significant experience with federal patent law, and while the time to

22

trial may be shorter in the Northern District of California, as alleged by Defendant, there has been

23

some, albeit preliminary, progress toward trial in the Southern District of California.

24

In light of the above, the Court finds that the convenience to the witnesses, ease of access to

25

evidence, local interest in the controversy, and the interests ofjustice outweigh the plaintiff's choice

26

of forum and compel transferring venue of this action to the Northern District of California.

27
28

-5-

12cv00499

1
2
3
4

CONCLUSION

Accordingly, Gameview's Motion to Transfer Venue is GRANTED.

This action is

TRANSFERRED to the Northern District of California.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

5

6 DATED: Decemb,t: 2012
7
8
9

10

11
12
13

14

15
16

17
18
19

20
21
22

23
24
25

26
27
28

- 6-

12cv00499