Jezign Licensing, LLC v. Bebe Stores, Inc. et al

Filing 19

ORDER granting 13 Defendants' Motion to Transfer Venue and Transferring Case to United States District Court for the District of Maryland Case. Signed by Judge Janis L. Sammartino on 7/19/2021. (jmr)

Case 3:20-cv-01064-JLS-AGS Document 19 Filed 07/19/21 PageID.177 Page 1 of 14

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11
12
13
14
15
16

JEZIGN LICENSING, LLC,
a New York company

Case No.: 20-CV-1064 JLS (AGS)
ORDER (1) GRANTING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
TRANSFER VENUE AND
(2) TRANSFERRING CASE TO
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF
MARYLAND

Plaintiff,
v.
BEBE STORES, INC., a California
corporation; and ZIGI USA LLC, a
Florida limited liability company,
Defendants.

17

(ECF No. 13)

18
19
20

Presently before the Court is Defendants Zigi USA LLC (“Zigi”) and bebe stores,

21

inc.’s (“bebe”) (collectively, “Defendants”) Motion to Dismiss or Transfer Under

22

§ 1404(a) (“Mot.,” ECF No. 13). Plaintiff Jezign Licensing, LLC (“Plaintiff”) filed an

23

Opposition to Defendants’ Motion (“Opp’n,” ECF No. 16), and Defendants filed a Reply

24

in Support of the Motion (“Reply,” ECF No. 18). The Court took this matter under

25

submission without oral argument pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7.1(d)(1). See ECF No.

26

17. Having reviewed the Parties’ arguments and the law, the Court finds that transfer under

27

28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) is appropriate.

28

Motion.

Accordingly, the Court GRANTS Defendants’

1
20-CV-1064 JLS (AGS)

Case 3:20-cv-01064-JLS-AGS Document 19 Filed 07/19/21 PageID.178 Page 2 of 14

1

BACKGROUND

2

This present action concerns two of Defendants’ sneaker models—the Sport Krysten

3

and the Sport Keene. See generally ECF No. 1 (“Compl.”). Plaintiff designs light-up

4

footwear. See id. ¶ 9. Plaintiff holds a design patent on a particular type of light-up shoes,

5

which differs from other light-up shoes in the design and placement of the shoe’s

6

illumination system. Id. Plaintiff owns a patent covering the design, U.S. Design Patent

7

No. D554,848 (the “’848 patent”). Id. ¶ 12. 1

8

Plaintiff brought this complaint alleging that Defendants willfully infringed upon

9

Plaintiff’s design patent by selling and marketing the Sport Krysten and the Sport Keene.

10

Id. ¶ 1. Plaintiff contends that “the ordinary observer would be deceived in believing that

11

the design of [Defendants’] shoes is the design claimed in the patent-in-suit.” Id. ¶ 15.

12

Plaintiff claims Defendants sell, distribute, and market these infringing shoes. Id. ¶ 18.

13

This is not the Parties’ first legal run-in, however. In 2016, Plaintiff filed a patent

14

infringement suit against bebe in the United States District Court for the District of

15

Maryland. Mot. at 2; see Jezign Licensing, LLC v. Bebe Stores, Inc., No. 8:16-cv-01191

16

(D. Md. Apr. 21, 2016). In the Maryland action, Plaintiff alleged bebe infringed another

17

of Plaintiff’s patents, U.S. Patent No. 6,837,590 (the “’590 patent”). Mot. at 2.2 Zigi

18

assumed responsibility for bebe’s defense pursuant to a purchase agreement between

19

Defendants.

20

“Agreement”), whereby Plaintiff agreed to release Defendants from all claims related to

21

the ’848 and ’590 patents and granted Zigi an exclusive license to use the ’848 and ’590

22

patents. See ECF No. 15-1 (filed under seal). The Agreement contains two provisions

23

important to the determination of the present Motion. The first is a forum-selection clause,

24

in which the parties agree that any dispute related to the Agreement will be decided in the

Id.

The parties ultimately entered into a settlement agreement (the

25
26
27
28

1

The ’848 patent was issued on November 15, 2004. Compl. ¶ 2.

2

Plaintiff filed two other complaints in the District of Maryland around this time alleging infringement of
the ’590 patent—one against Nike, Inc., and another against Sketchers, U.S.A., Inc. Mot. at 2.
2
20-CV-1064 JLS (AGS)

Case 3:20-cv-01064-JLS-AGS Document 19 Filed 07/19/21 PageID.179 Page 3 of 14

1

federal and state courts of Maryland. Id. The second is a termination clause, which

2

provides that the Agreement will terminate if either the ’848 patent or the ’590 patent are

3

determined to be invalid. Id.

4

In May of 2018, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) invalidated the ’590

5

patent. Opp’n at 2. Plaintiff contends that this event terminated the Agreement; however,

6

Defendants continued to sell the shoes allegedly covered by the ’848 patent after this

7

supposed termination. Id. Accordingly, Plaintiff brought this suit seeking damages and to

8

enjoin Defendants from continuing to infringe upon the ’848 patent. See generally Compl.

9

Defendants in turn filed the instant Motion seeking dismissal of the action or transfer to

10

the District of Maryland under § 1404(a). See Mot. at 3.

11

LEGAL STANDARD

12

“For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district

13

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

14

brought.” 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). “Section 1404(a) is merely a codification of the doctrine

15

of forum non conveniens for the subset of cases in which the transferee forum is within the

16

federal court system; in such cases, Congress has replaced the traditional remedy of

17

outright dismissal with transfer.” Atl. Marine Constr. Co. Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct. for the W.

18

Dist. of Texas, 571 U.S. 49, 60 (2013).

19

A section 1404(a) motion is the proper mechanism to enforce a forum-selection

20

clause when the plaintiff’s chosen venue is otherwise proper. Id. at 59. “When the parties

21

have agreed to a valid forum-selection clause, a district court should ordinarily transfer the

22

case to the forum specified in that clause. Only under extraordinary circumstances

23

unrelated to the convenience of the parties should a § 1404(a) motion be denied.” Id. at

24

62. “When parties have contracted in advance to litigate disputes in a particular forum,

25

courts should not unnecessarily disrupt the parties’ settled expectations. . . . In all but the

26

most unusual cases, therefore, ‘the interest of justice’ is served by holding parties to their

27

bargain.” Id. at 66.

28

///
3
20-CV-1064 JLS (AGS)

Case 3:20-cv-01064-JLS-AGS Document 19 Filed 07/19/21 PageID.180 Page 4 of 14

1

“A motion to transfer under § 1404(a) thus calls on the district court to weigh in the

2

balance a number of case-specific factors. The presence of a forum-selection clause . . .

3

will be a significant factor that figures centrally in the district court’s calculus.” Stewart

4

Org., Inc. v. Ricoh Corp., 487 U.S. 22, 29 (1988). When the parties have agreed to a valid

5

forum-selection clause, the court must adjust the ordinary section 1404(a) analysis so that

6

(1) no weight is given to the plaintiff’s choice of forum, (2) all private interest factors are

7

deemed to weigh entirely in favor of the preselected forum, and (3) the original venue’s

8

choice-of-law rules will not carry to the new venue upon transfer. Atl. Marine, 571 U.S.

9

at 63–64.

10

“[I]n order to defeat transfer, [a p]laintiff must show that the forum-selection clause

11

is not valid and enforceable or does not apply to his claims, or that § 1404(a) ‘public-

12

interest factors overwhelmingly disfavor a transfer.’” Dolin v. Facebook, Inc., 289 F.

13

Supp. 3d 1153, 1158 (D. Haw. 2018) (quoting Atl. Marine, 571 U.S. at 67). The public

14

interest factors include “the administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion; the

15

local interest in having localized controversies decided at home; [and] the interest in having

16

the trial of a diversity case in a forum that is at home with the law.” Atl. Marine, 571 U.S.

17

at 62 n.6 (quoting Piper Aircraft v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 241 n.6 (1981)) (alteration in

18

original). The party resisting the enforcement of a forum-selection clause has the burden

19

of showing that these factors “overwhelmingly disfavor a transfer.” Id. at 67.

20

DISCUSSION

21

Defendants move to dismiss this action, or in the alternative, transfer it, based on the

22

forum-selection clause contained in the Agreement. Mot. at 2. Defendants contend that

23

the language of the forum-selection clause renders the Southern District of California an

24

improper venue, as this action should have been brought in Maryland. Id. at 3. The

25

language of the forum-selection clause, found in Section 9.10 of the Agreement, provides:

26

This agreement shall be construed, and the relationship between
the Parties determined, in accordance with the laws of Maryland,
notwithstanding any choice-of-law principle that might dictate a
different governing law. Each Party irrevocably agrees, consents

27
28

4
20-CV-1064 JLS (AGS)

Case 3:20-cv-01064-JLS-AGS Document 19 Filed 07/19/21 PageID.181 Page 5 of 14

1

and submits to jurisdiction and venue in the federal and state
courts located within Maryland, with respect to any dispute
arising out of or relating in any way to this Agreement.

2
3
4

Id. The Agreement also contains a termination clause. See ECF No. 15-1. The termination

5

clause, found in Section 5.2, reads: “This Agreement may only be terminated by mutual

6

written agreement of the Parties; provided, however, that this Agreement shall terminate if

7

a final non-appealable judgement is entered holding either patent which make up the Jezign

8

IP to be invalid.” Id. Plaintiff argues that when the ’590 patent was invalidated by the

9

PTAB, the termination clause was triggered. Opp’n at 2. Therefore, Plaintiff contends the

10

Court should apply the general rules for transfer of venue. Id. at 2–3 (citing Rubio v.

11

Monsanto Co., 181 F. Supp. 3d 746, 759 (C.D. Cal. 2016)).

12

Alternatively, Plaintiff argues that, even if the Agreement had not been terminated,

13

bebe lacks standing to enforce the forum-selection clause. Opp’n at 4. The Court addresses

14

these Arguments in turn.

15

I.

The Validity of the Forum-Selection Clause

16

The Parties dispute whether the Agreement terminated when the PTAB invalidated

17

the ’590 patent. The termination clause of the Agreement provides that, should a final

18

judgment be entered that declares either patent making up the Jezign IP to be invalid, the

19

Agreement is terminated. Opp’n at 2. “Jezign IP” is defined in the Agreement as the

20

technology described in the ’848 and ’590 patents. See ECF No. 15-1. Indeed, in May

21

2018, the PTAB issued a final written decision invalidating the ’590 patent. Nike, Inc. v.

22

Jezign Licensing, LLC, No. IPR2017-00246 (P.T.A.B. May 29, 2018) (“Ex. A,” ECF No.

23

16-1). However, Defendant argues that Plaintiff gave “no notice whatsoever” to the

24

Defendants of the PTAB decision, and Plaintiff continued to conduct itself as though the

25

Agreement was still in effect by accepting royalty payments from Zigi. Reply at 3

26

(emphasis omitted). The Court agrees with Defendants that the enforceability of the

27

Agreement is “a substantive matter under contention,” id., and a decision on the merits of

28

this claim is premature at this stage in the litigation. Therefore, the Court declines to decide
5
20-CV-1064 JLS (AGS)

Case 3:20-cv-01064-JLS-AGS Document 19 Filed 07/19/21 PageID.182 Page 6 of 14

1

whether the Agreement was terminated or breached. However, even assuming, arguendo,

2

that the Agreement terminated with the PTAB decision, the Court finds that the forum-

3

selection clause survives the termination of the Agreement.

4

“Dispute resolution provisions presumptively survive the termination of a contract.”

5

Marcotte v. Micros Sys., Inc., No. C 14-01372 LB, 2014 WL 4477349, at *9 (N.D. Cal.

6

Sept. 11, 2014). However, this presumption is rebuttable. Saleemi v. Gosh Enters., Inc.,

7

467 F. App’x 744, 744 (9th Cir. 2012) (citing Litton Fin. Printing Div. v. NLRB, 501 U.S.

8

190, 204 (1991); 13 Corbin on Contracts § 67.2 (rev. ed. 2003 & Supp. 2011)). Such a

9

rebuttal may be evidenced through “the express and unambiguous words of the contract.”

10

Kelley v. Colonial Penn Life Ins. Co., No. CV 20-3348 MWF-E, 2020 WL 6150922, at *4

11

(C.D. Cal. July 13, 2020). Moreover, “[w]here the language is clear and not absurd, it will

12

be followed.” Id. at 5 (quoting Estate of Wemyss, 49 Cal. App. 3d 53, 59 (1975)). Still,

13

the contract must “explicitly indicate[]” that a forum-selection clause is designed to

14

terminate with the rest of the agreement; otherwise, the “forum selection clause survives

15

termination of the contract.” Zaitzeff v. Peregrine Fin. Grp., Inc., No. CV 08-02874 MMM

16

(JWJx), 2008 WL 11408422, at *9 (C.D. Cal. June 23, 2008) (quoting Claber, S.p.A. v.

17

Lowe’s Cos., Inc., C 98-4760, 1999 WL 166974, at *3 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 23, 1999)).

18

Thus, the question is whether the language of the Agreement “expressly indicates”

19

that the forum-selection clause3 is designed to terminate with the rest of the Agreement.

20

Zaitzeff, 2008 WL 11408422, at *9 (quoting Claber, 1999 WL 166974, at *3). The Court

21

finds that it does not. Nothing in the Agreement expressly indicates that the Parties

22

intended for the forum-selection clause to terminate with the rest of the Agreement. See

23

generally ECF No. 15-1. Without clear language to the contrary, the forum-selection

24

clause survives even if the contract was terminated or breached. See, e.g., Zaitzeff, 2008

25

WL 11408422, at *9 (holding a forum-selection clause survived because nothing in the

26
27
28

3

The Court notes that the forum-selection clause at issue is indeed a dispute resolution provision. See,
e.g., Marcotte, 2014 WL 4477349, at *9 (recognizing that a forum-selection clause is a dispute resolution
provision); Zaitzeff, 2008 WL 11408422, at *9 (same).
6
20-CV-1064 JLS (AGS)

Case 3:20-cv-01064-JLS-AGS Document 19 Filed 07/19/21 PageID.183 Page 7 of 14

1

contract, “express or implied,” indicated the parties intended the forum-selection clause to

2

terminate); VBConversons, LLC v. Buildertrend Solutions, Inc., No. 2:17-cv-02266-

3

CAS(JEMx), 2017 WL 2469969, at *3 (C.D. Cal. June 5, 2017) (holding a forum-selection

4

clause survived termination because “nothing in the [contract]” suggested the parties

5

intended for it to terminate); Tanious v. Landstar Sys., Inc., No. CV 19-1067 DSF (SHKx),

6

2020 WL 3166610, at *5 n.5 (C.D. Cal. June 15, 2020) (finding no evidence the parties

7

intended the forum-selection clause to terminate with the rest of their contract); see also

8

Kelley, 2020 WL 6150922, at *4 (finding a forum-selection clause terminated with the rest

9

of the agreement based off the language “[t]his rider . . . terminates concurrently with the

10

certificate to which it is attached” (emphasis added)). Accordingly, this Court finds that

11

the forum-selection clause survives even if the Agreement was terminated.

12

Therefore, the Court now considers whether the forum-selection clause is valid and

13

enforceable.4 In order to show a forum-selection clause is not valid or enforceable, a

14

plaintiff must make a strong showing that:

15

(1) the clause is invalid due to fraud or overreaching, (2)
enforcement would contravene a strong public policy of the
forum in which the suit is brought, whether declared by statute
or judicial decision, or (3) trial in the contractual forum would be
so gravely difficult and inconvenient that [the litigant] will for all
practical reasons be deprived of his day in court.

16
17
18
19
20

Sun v. Advanced China Healthcare, Inc., 901 F.3d 1081, 1088 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting M/S

21

Breman, 407 U.S. at 15, 18) (internal quotation marks omitted). 5

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4

Plaintiff’s argument is premised on the forum-selection clause terminating with the rest of the
Agreement. In fact, Plaintiff even concedes “that the forum selection clause would be enforceable if the
Agreement was still valid.” Opp’n at 3.
5

The Sun court noted that while Atlantic Marine stated that a forum-selection clause is valid except for
“extraordinary circumstances,” courts received little guidance on what constituted extraordinary
circumstances. 901 F.3d at 1088. Therefore, the Sun court turned to the Supreme Court’s prior decision
in M/S Berman for guidance. Id.
7
20-CV-1064 JLS (AGS)

Case 3:20-cv-01064-JLS-AGS Document 19 Filed 07/19/21 PageID.184 Page 8 of 14

1

Plaintiff does not contend fraud or overreaching should invalidate the forum-

2

selection clause. See generally Opp’n. Defendants point out both Parties “are sophisticated

3

commercial actors who negotiated the . . . Agreement at arms’ length and with full

4

knowledge of all material facts as they existed at the time.” Mot. at 5. The Court finds no

5

evidence of fraud or overreaching. See Peterson v. Boeing Co., 715 F.3d 276, 280 (9th

6

Cir. 2013) (holding that a plaintiff must show fraud or coercion led to the clause being

7

included in the contract).

8

Plaintiff also does not argue enforcement of the forum-selection clause would

9

contravene any public policy. See generally Opp’n. In order to show that it would, Plaintiff

10

must “point to a statute or judicial decision that clearly states such a strong policy.” Sun,

11

901 F.3d at 1090. Plaintiff has not done so. See generally Opp’n.

12

Finally, Plaintiff does not claim litigating in Maryland would deprive it of its day in

13

court. See generally Opp’n. The Supreme Court’s decision in Atlantic Marine suggests

14

this factor is difficult to satisfy. See Sun, 901 F.3d at 1091. “[C]ourts must enforce a

15

forum-selection clause unless the contractually selected forum affords the plaintiff[] no

16

remedies whatsoever.” Id. at 1092 (citing Weber v. PACT XPP Techs., AG, 811 F.3d 758,

17

774 (5th Cir. 2016)). Plaintiff maintains its principal place of business in Maryland.

18

Compl. ¶ 3. Thus, there is no indication it would be monumentally difficult for Plaintiff

19

to litigate this matter there. Nor would Plaintiff be deprived of any remedy, since federal

20

courts in Maryland routinely hear patent cases. See, e.g., In re CTP Innovations, LLC,

21

Patent Litig., No. 14-MD-2581, 2015 WL 317149 (D. Md. Jan. 23, 2015); C.R. Daniels,

22

Inc. v. Naztec Intern. Grp., LLC, No. ELH-11-01624, 2012 WL 1268623 (D. Md. Apr. 13,

23

2012). In short, the Court finds that Plaintiff has not demonstrated the forum-selection

24

clause is invalid or unenforceable. Accordingly, the Court concludes that the forum-

25

selection clause remains valid and enforceable despite the alleged termination of the

26

Agreement.

27

///

28

///
8
20-CV-1064 JLS (AGS)

Case 3:20-cv-01064-JLS-AGS Document 19 Filed 07/19/21 PageID.185 Page 9 of 14

1

II.

Public Interest Factors

2

Because the forum-selection clause is valid and enforceable, Plaintiff must show the

3

clause “does not apply to [its] claims, or that § 1404(a) ‘public-interest factors

4

overwhelmingly disfavor a transfer.’” Dolin v. Facebook, Inc., 289 F. Supp. 3d 1153, 1158

5

(D. Haw. 2018) (quoting Atl. Marine, 571 U.S. at 67). 6 Generally, courts will transfer a

6

case to the forum designated by the contract unless the plaintiff can show “extraordinary

7

factors unrelated to the convenience of the parties.” Atl. Marine, 571 U.S. at 52. Since

8

this bar is exceedingly high, “the practical result is that forum selection clauses should

9

control except in unusual cases.” Id. at 64.

10

The Court first considers whether the forum-selection clause applies to Plaintiff’s

11

claims. The forum-selection clause provides that both Parties submit to jurisdiction and

12

venue in the courts of Maryland “with respect to any dispute arising out of or relating in

13

any way to this Agreement.” Mot. at 3 (emphasis added). The Agreement pertains to the

14

’590 and ’848 patents. See ECF No. 15-1. The current dispute revolves around the ’848

15

patent.

16

encompasses Plaintiff’s claims. See Sun, 901 F.3d at 1086 (“[F]orum-selection clauses

17

covering disputes ‘relating to’ a particular agreement apply to any disputes that reference

18

the agreement or have some ‘logical or causal connection’ to the agreement.” (quoting John

19

Wyeth & Bro. Ltd. v. CIGNA Int’l Corp., 119 F.3d 1070, 1074 (3d Cir. 1997))).

See Mot. at 3.

Thus, the Court concludes that the forum-selection clause

20

Thus, the forum-selection clause will govern unless Plaintiff can show that

21

“public-interest factors overwhelmingly disfavor a transfer.” Atl. Marine, 571 U.S. at 67.

22

Atlantic Marine enumerated some factors for courts to consider: “the administrative

23
24
25
26
27
28

6

The Court also notes that where the forum-selection clause points to a state or foreign forum, the proper
way to enforce it is through the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Atl. Marine, 571 U.S. at 60. However,
where the forum-selection clause chooses a federal forum, section 1404(a) is the proper mechanism. Id.
Here, the forum-selection clause points to “the federal and state courts located within Maryland.” Mot. at
3. Additionally, this is a patent infringement case. See id. at 2. Patent law is a matter of exclusive federal
jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a). Therefore, the only court that could hear this matter is the District
of Maryland, a federal forum. Section 1404(a) is thus the proper vehicle here.
9
20-CV-1064 JLS (AGS)

Case 3:20-cv-01064-JLS-AGS Document 19 Filed 07/19/21 PageID.186 Page 10 of 14

1

difficulties flowing from court congestion; the local interest in having localized

2

controversies decided at home; [and] the interest in having the trial of a diversity case in a

3

forum that is at home with the law.” Id. at 62 n.6 (quoting Piper Aircraft v. Reyno, 454

4

U.S. 235, 241 n.6 (1981)) (alteration in original). Some courts within the Ninth Circuit

5

also consider “the imposition of jury duty on the people of a community that has no relation

6

to the litigation” and “the avoidance of unnecessary problems in conflicts of laws.”

7

Edwards v. C4 Planning Solutions, No. 3:18-cv-02144-BEN-AGS, 2019 WL 1746573, at

8

*5 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 18, 2019) (quoting Loya v. Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, 583

9

F.3d 656, 664 (9th Cir. 2009)). 7 The Court considers each factor in turn.

10

A.

11

Plaintiff does not suggest any administrative difficulties flowing from court

12

congestion exist here. See generally Opp’n. The Court is not aware of any, either.

13

Accordingly, the Court finds this factor to be neutral. See Goldman v. U.S. Transp. &

14

Logistics, LLC, No. 17-cv-00691-BAS-NLS, 2017 WL 6541250, at *7 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 20,

15

2017) (holding that the plaintiff had not shown public interest factors favored dismissal, in

16

part because the plaintiff did not demonstrate any administrative difficulties flowing from

17

court congestion); Tech. Credit, 307 F. Supp. 3d at 1009 (finding this factor neutral because

18

neither side made any showing on court congestion).

Court Congestion

19

B.

20

This factor asks whether “there is an identifiable local interest in the controversy,

21

not whether another forum also has an interest.” Tech. Credit, 307 F. Supp 3d at 1009

22

(quoting Bos. Telecomms. Grp., 588 F.3d at 1211). Plaintiff alleges, and Defendants do

23

not dispute, that Defendants conduct business in California. See Compl. ¶ 7. Courts have

24

recognized that where a defendant intentionally reaches into a forum, there is a localized

Local Interest

25
26
27
28

7

The factors enumerated by the Court in Atlantic Marine are a non-exhaustive list courts may consider.
See 571 U.S. at 62 n.6. Thus, Courts within the Ninth Circuit will occasionally consider additional factors.
See Edwards, 2019 WL 1746573; see also Tech. Credit Corp. v. N.J. Christian Acad. Inc., 307 F. Supp.
3d 993, 1008–09 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (considering “the costs of resolving a dispute unrelated to a particular
forum” as a factor (citing Bos. Telecomms. Grp., Inc. v. Wood, 588 F.3d 1201, 1211 (9th Cir. 2009))).
10
20-CV-1064 JLS (AGS)

Case 3:20-cv-01064-JLS-AGS Document 19 Filed 07/19/21 PageID.187 Page 11 of 14

1

interest in the controversy. See Edwards, 2019 WL 1746573, at *5. However, the Court

2

has no information on the record that Defendants “reached” into the Southern District. See

3

generally Compl. Even assuming, arguendo, that California has some interest in regulating

4

the conduct of businesses within its borders, courts have found that this “limited interest”

5

is not enough to deny a defendant’s motion. See Tanious, 2020 WL 3166610, at *6. 8 The

6

Court thus finds this factor does not weigh against transfer.

7

C.

8

Generally speaking, courts do not find that this factor weighs against transfer. See,

9

e.g., id. at *6; Goldman, 2017 WL 6541250, at *7. Indeed, “federal judges routinely apply

10

the law of a State other than the State in which they sit.” Atl. Marine, 571 U.S. at 67.

11

However, patent law is a matter of exclusive federal jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a).

12

And federal courts in both Maryland and this District routinely hear patent cases. See, e.g.,

13

Talavera Hair Prods., Inc. v. Taizhou Yunsung Elec. Appliance Co., No. 18-CV-823 JLS

14

(JLB), 2021 WL 824768 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 4, 2021) (Sammartino, J.); Orthopedic Hospital

15

v. DJO Global, Inc., No. 19-CV-970 JLS (WVG), 2020 WL 7129347 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 4,

16

2020) (Sammartino, J.); In re CTP Innovations, 2015 WL 317149 (patent litigation heard

17

in the District of Maryland); C.R. Daniels, 2012 WL 1268623 (same). Thus, there is no

18

reason to believe a District Judge in Maryland would be any less familiar with patent law

19

than this Court. Plaintiff identifies no “‘exceptionally arcane features’ of [patent] law ‘that

20

are likely to defy comprehension by a federal judge sitting in [Maryland].’” Tanious, 2020

21

WL 3166610, at *6 (quoting Atl. Marine, 571 U.S. at 68). The Court therefore finds this

22

factor does not weigh against transfer.

Familiarity with the Law

23

D.

24

Neither side has made any showing that jury duty would be imposed on people

25

having no relation to this litigation. This alone would be enough to render this factor

Imposition of Jury Duty

26
27
28

8

The plaintiff in Tanious also raised this argument in its opposition brief. 2020 WL 3166610, at *6.
Plaintiff has not done so here. See generally Opp’n.
11
20-CV-1064 JLS (AGS)

Case 3:20-cv-01064-JLS-AGS Document 19 Filed 07/19/21 PageID.188 Page 12 of 14

1

neutral. See Tech. Credit, 307 F. Supp. 3d at 1009 (finding this factor neutral where neither

2

side made any showing that jury duty would be imposed on people with no relation to the

3

litigation). The Court also notes that where a party has at least some connection to a

4

contractually selected forum, courts have found this factor does not weigh against transfer.

5

See Edwards, 2019 WL 1746573, at *5 (“[Defendant] has at least some connection to

6

Burke County, and thus, the Court rejects [plaintiff’s] argument to the contrary.”). Here,

7

the Parties previously litigated the infringement of the ’590 patent in the District of

8

Maryland. See Mot. at 2. Thus, the Court finds that the factor does not weigh against

9

transfer.

10

E.

11

Finally, Plaintiff does not contend there would be any unnecessary problems with

12

conflicts of law. See generally Opp’n. Because patent law is a matter of exclusive federal

13

jurisdiction, the same law will be applied whether this action is litigated in the Southern

14

District of California or the District of Maryland. See 28 U.S.C. § 1338(a). The Court

15

therefore finds this factor does not weigh against transfer.

Conflicts of Laws

16

In sum, the Court finds that no public interest factors weigh against transfer.

17

Accordingly, Plaintiff has failed to show that these factors “overwhelmingly disfavor a

18

transfer.” Atl. Marine, 571 U.S. at 67.

19

III.

bebe’s Standing

20

Alternatively, Plaintiff argues that if the forum-selection clause is enforceable, bebe

21

lacks standing to invoke it. Opp’n at 4. Defendants counter that bebe is a third-party

22

beneficiary of the Agreement and is therefore bound by the forum-selection clause. Reply

23

at 4.

24

As a threshold matter, a non-party can be bound by a forum-selection clause in two

25

ways: “when the non-party is a third-party beneficiary of the contract[,] and [when] the

26

non-party and the conduct at issue are ‘closely related’ to the parties to the contract with

27

the forum selection clause.” McNally v. Kingdom Tr. Co., No. SA CV 20-00830-DOC-

28

MRW, 2020 WL 7786539, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 13, 2020) (citing White Knight Yacht LLC
12
20-CV-1064 JLS (AGS)

Case 3:20-cv-01064-JLS-AGS Document 19 Filed 07/19/21 PageID.189 Page 13 of 14

1

v. Certain Lloyd’s of London, 407 F. Supp. 3d 931, 947 (S.D. Cal. 2019)). Additionally,

2

regardless of whether the third party is a plaintiff or a defendant, it can be bound, either as

3

a third-party beneficiary or because of closely related conduct. See Emp’t Solutions Mgmt.,

4

Inc. v. Partners Personnel—Cent. Valley, Corp., No. 8:17-cv-1044-JLS-JCGX, 2017 WL

5

7370971, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2017); AMA Multimedia, LLC v. Sagan Ltd., 807 Fed.

6

App’x 677, 679 (9th Cir. 2020). Here, the Court finds the forum-selection clause applies

7

to bebe for both reasons.

8

First, a third party can be bound to a forum-selection clause as a third-party

9

beneficiary where they “knowingly exploit[] the benefits of [an] agreement and receive[]

10

benefits flowing directly from the agreement.” White Knight, 407 F. Supp. 3d at 947

11

(quoting Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., 763 F.3d 1171, 1179 (9th Cir. 2014)). In White

12

Knight, the court found a non-signatory bound by a forum-selection clause because it

13

knowingly sought to exploit the benefits of the contract by tendering a claim under the

14

contract. Id. Here, too, bebe has knowingly exploited the benefits of the Agreement by

15

allegedly manufacturing and selling shoes covered by the ’590 patent. See Compl. ¶ 16.

16

The court in White Knight also found the non-signatory benefitted from the contract, as

17

claims were payable to them. 407 F. Supp. 3d at 947. Similarly, bebe has received benefits

18

flowing from the Agreement because, although Plaintiff held the ’590 patent, bebe had

19

allegedly contracted to sell the infringing shoes. See Compl. ¶ 16. Thus, the Court finds

20

bebe bound by the forum-selection clause as a third-party beneficiary of the Agreement.9

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

9

Plaintiff cites Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., 763 F.3d 1171 (9th Cir. 2014), in support of its argument
that bebe is not bound as a third-party beneficiary. Opp’n at 5. However, Plaintiff’s reliance on Nguyen
is misplaced. The main dispute in Nguyen revolved around whether the plaintiff was a primary party to a
Terms of Use agreement. 763 F.3d at 1180. The court briefly addressed whether the plaintiff could be
bound as a third-party beneficiary but concluded the plaintiff did not benefit from the agreement between
two primary parties. Id. at 1179. As mentioned supra, bebe benefitted from the Agreement. More
importantly, however, Plaintiff quotes Nguyen for the assertion that a “third party must show that ‘reliance
on a contract’s choice of law provision in itself constitutes a direct benefit.’” Opp’n at 5 (quoting Nguyen,
763 F.3d at 1180). But the full quote from the Ninth Circuit in Nguyen is “we are unable to find any case
law holding that reliance on a contract’s choice of law provision in itself constitutes a ‘direct benefit.’”
763 F.3d at 1180 (emphasis added). This language undercuts Plaintiff’s argument. Accordingly,
Plaintiff’s arguments are without merit, and the Court finds bebe is bound by the forum-selection clause.
13
20-CV-1064 JLS (AGS)

Case 3:20-cv-01064-JLS-AGS Document 19 Filed 07/19/21 PageID.190 Page 14 of 14

1

A third party can also be bound by a forum-selection clause where its conduct is

2

closely related to the contract.10 “[W]here the alleged conduct of the nonparties is closely

3

related to the contractual relationship, a range of transaction participants, parties and

4

nonparties, should benefit from and be subject to [the] forum selection clause.” McNally,

5

2020 WL 7786539, at *2 (quoting Holland Am. Line Inc. v. Wartsila N. Am., Inc., 485 F.3d

6

450, 456 (9th Cir. 2007)). In several situations, courts within the Ninth Circuit have found

7

third parties to be closely related to a contract and thus bound by a forum-selection clause

8

contained therein. See Vistage Worldwide v. Knudsen, No. 19-cv-01351-W (JLB), 2020

9

WL 71140, at *7 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 7, 2020) (collecting cases). For example, in White Knight,

10

the court found a non-signatory to a contract bound by the contract’s forum-selection clause

11

because the party was “part of the larger contractual relationship.” 407 F. Supp. 3d at 947

12

(quoting Holland Am. Line, 485 F.3d at 456). Here, too, bebe is part of a larger contractual

13

relationship. bebe has sold and marketed the allegedly infringing shoes based on the

14

Agreement. See Compl. ¶ 16; Reply at 2. Thus, the Court finds that bebe is also bound by

15

the forum-selection clause because its conduct is closely related to the Agreement.

16

CONCLUSION

17

For the above reasons, Defendants’ Motion for Transfer to the District of Maryland

18

under § 1404(a) (ECF No. 13) is GRANTED.

19

TRANSFER this matter to the United States District Court for the District of Maryland.

20
21

The Clerk of the Court SHALL

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: July 19, 2021

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

10

Importantly, courts must analyze whether the third party’s conduct is closely related to the contractual
relationship, not whether the party itself is closely related to the contractual relationship. See AMA
Multimedia, 807 Fed. App’x at 679.
14
20-CV-1064 JLS (AGS)