VideoShare LLC v Google Inc. and YouTube LLC
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER DENYING (15 in 1:13-cv-00991-GMS) MOTION to Transfer Case to United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts filed by Viddler Inc., DENYING (13 in 1:13-cv-00990-GMS) MOTION to Transfer Case to The Distric t of Massachusetts filed by Google Inc., YouTube LLC, DENYING (10 in 1:13-cv-00992-GMS, 10 in 1:13-cv-00992-GMS) MOTION to Transfer Case to District of Massachusetts MOTION to Stay Pending Disposition of the Transfer Motion filed by Vimeo LLC. Signed by Chief Judge Gregory M. Sleet on 4/1/2014. Associated Cases: 1:13-cv-00990-GMS, 1:13-cv-00991-GMS, 1:13-cv-00992-GMS(asw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
GOOGLE INC. and YOUTUBE LLC,
Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs. )
Civil Action No. 13-990 GMS
Civil Action No. 13-991-GMS
Civil Action No. 13-992-GMS
On June 4, 2013, the plaintiff VideoShare, LLC ("VideoShare") filed actions against
Google Inc. ("Google"), YouTube, LLC ("YouTube"), Viddler, Inc. ("Viddler"), and Vimeo,
LLC ("Vimeo") (collectively, "the defendants") alleging infringement of U.S. Patent No.
8,438,608 ("the '608 patent"). 1 On June 26, 2013, VideoShare filed amended complaints against
Google and YouTube, (Google, D.I. 7), and against Viddler, (Viddler, D.I. 10), asserting
infringement of U.S. Patent No. 8,464,302 ("the '302 patent"). Presently before the court are the
defendants' Motions to Transfer to the District of Massachusetts pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)
and Stay Pending Disposition of the Transfer Motions.
(Google, D.I. 13; Viddler, D.I. 15;
Vimeo, D.I. 10.) For the reasons that follow, the court will deny the defendants' motions.
Video Share is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business in
Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts. (Google, D.I. 7,
Google is a Delaware corporation with its
principal place of business in Mountain View, California. (Id.,
ii 5.) YouTube is a wholly-owned
subsidiary of Google and a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of
business in San Bruno, California. (Id.,
Viddler is a Delaware corporation with its principal
place of business in Bethlehem, Pennsylvania. (Viddler, D.I. 10,
5.) Vimeo is a Delaware
limited liability company with its principal place of business is in New York, New York.
(Vimeo, D.I. 1, ii 5.)
The '302 and '608 patents (collectively, "the patents-in-suit") relate to systems and
methods for sharing a streaming video over a computer network. VideoShare alleges that the
defendants' products and services for receiving, converting, and sharing streaming video infringe
the patents-in-suit. (Google, D.I. 7; Viddler, D.I. 10; Vimeo, D.I. 1.)
See VideoShare LLC v. Google, Inc., C.A. No. 13-990-GMS ("Google") (D.I. 1); VideoShare LLC v.
Viddler, C.A. No. 13-991-GMS ("Viddler") (D.l. l); and VideoShare LLC v. Vimeo, C.A. No. 13-992GMS ("Vimeo") (D.l. 1).
STANDARD OF REVIEW
"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 district or division to which all parties have consented." 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Under this
provision, a district court may exercise "broad discretion to determine, on an individualized,
case-by-case basis, whether convenience and fairness considerations weigh in favor of transfer."
Jumara v. State Farm Ins. Co., 55 F.3d 873, 883 (3d Cir. 1995). The purpose of transfer is to
protect litigants, witnesses, and the public from the unnecessary waste of time, energy, and
money. See Virgin Wireless, Inc. v. Virgin Enters. Ltd., 201 F. Supp. 2d. 294, 299 (D. Del. 2002)
(citing Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612, 616 (1964)).
The court undertakes a two-step inquiry in order to resolve a motion to transfer. "The
court first asks whether the action could have been brought in the proposed transferee venue and
then determines whether transfer to a different forum would best serve the interests of justice and
convenience." Smart Audio Techs., L.L.C. v. Apple, Inc., 910 F. Supp. 2d 718, 724 (D. Del.
2012). At each step, the defendant has the burden to demonstrate that a transfer is appropriate,
Jumara, 55 F.3d at 879-80, and "unless the balance of convenience of the parties is strongly in
favor of the defendant, the plaintiffs choice of forum should prevail." Shutte v. Armco Steel
Corp., 431 F .2d 22, 25 (3d Cir. 1970).
A. The Propriety of the Transferee Forum
The parties do not dispute that the present action could have been brought in the District
of Massachusetts -- VideoShare resides in Massachusetts, and all of the defendants provide
services nationally and thus, perform the allegedly infringing activities in that district. See 28
U.S.C. §§ 1338(a) and 1400(b); (Google, D.I. 14 at 7; Viddler, D.I. 16 at 3-4; Vimeo, D.I. 11 at
5.) Accordingly, the court proceeds to the second step of the transfer analysis.
B. The Jumera Analysis
The court next must consider whether transfer to the District of Massachusetts would
serve the interests of convenience and justice. In the Third Circuit, this requires an individualized
analysis, accounting for the various private and public interests guarded by § 1404(a). See
Jumara, 55 F.3d at 879. The court, rather than applying any "definitive formula," considers each
of these ''Jumara factors" on a case-by-case basis. See id The private interests may include:
plaintiffs forum preference as manifested in the original choice;
the defendant's preference; whether the claim arose elsewhere; the
convenience of the parties as indicated by their relative physical
and financial condition; the convenience of the witnesses -- but
only to the extent that the witnesses may actually be unavailable
for trial in one of the fora; and the location of books and records
(similarly limited to the extent that the files could not be produced
in the alternative forum).
Id. (citations omitted). And the public interests may include:
the enforceability of the judgment: practical considerations that
could make the trial easy, expeditious, or inexpensive; the relative
administrative difficulty in the two fora resulting from court
congestion; the local interest in deciding local controversies at
home; the public policies of the fora; and the familiarity of the trial
judge with the applicable state law in diversity cases.
Id. at 879-80 (citations omitted).
Importantly, the Jumara analysis is not limited to these
explicitly enumerated factors, and no one factor is dispositive. See id at 879.
1. Private interest factors
a. Plaintiff's forum preference
VideoShare is a Delaware LLC, but it maintains a principal place of business m
Massachusetts. 2 Accordingly, VideoShare's forum choice weighs against transfer and is
accorded heightened weight in the analysis, but less than paramount consideration. See Linex
Techs., Inc. v. Hewlett-Packard Co., No. 11-400-GMS, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1924, at *10 (D.
Del. Jan. 7, 2013) (citing In re Link_A_Media Devices Corp., 662 F.3d 1221, 1223 (Fed. Cir.
2011) ("[W]hen a plaintiff chooses to bring an action in a district where it is not physically
located, its forum preference is entitled to something less than ... paramount consideration.")).
b. Defendant's forum preference
For the defendants' choice of forum factor to carry weight in the Jumera analysis, the
defendants must demonstrate "a legitimate and rational reason for seeking an alternative forum."
Audatex N Am., Inc. v. Mitchell Int'!, Inc., No. 12-139-GMS, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90847, at
*8 (D. Del. June 28, 2013) (citing Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Altera Corp., 842 F. Supp. 2d
744, 755 (D. Del. 2012)). Here, the defendants indicate that they prefer to litigate in the District
On October 26, 2012, VideoShare filed an action in the District of Massachusetts against YouTube for
infringement of U.S. Patent 7,987,492 ("the '492 patent"). See VideoShare, LLC v. YouTube, LLC,
("Mass. Action"), No. 12-cv-12012- MLW (D. Mass.), D.I. 1. The defendants allege that VideoShare is
forum shopping by filing the instant actions in Delaware when it had a closely related patent action
pending in Massachusetts. (Google, D.I. 22 at 9-10.) In response, VideoShare argues that it was issued
several new patents before a scheduling order was entered or any substantive motions were decided in the
Massachusetts action, and that it decided to abandon the '492 infringement claims in favor of pursuing
claims for infringement of two newly issued patents against YouTube and other defendants. (Id., D.I. 17
at 4.) VideoShare then gave YouTube a covenant not to sue for infringement of the '492 patent, and
moved to dismiss the Massachusetts action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on July 1, 2013,
approximately one month after it filed the instant Delaware actions. (Id.) YouTube opposed the motion to
dismiss and sought leave to supplement its counterclaims with claims related to the '608 and '302 patents.
(Id., D.I. 17 at 5.) On February 1, 2014, the Massachusetts court denied YouTube's request to
supplement its counterclaims, granted VideoShare's motion, and dismissed the action for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. Mass. Action, No. 12-cv-12012- MLW, slip op. at 11 (D. Mass. Feb. 1, 2014). In
light of the fact that the Massachusetts court had not issued a ruling unfavorable to VideoShare at the time
it filed the Delaware actions, the court is not persuaded that VideoShare was "forum shopping" or seeking
any improper advantage. See MP Vista, Inc. v. Motiva Enters. LLC, C.A. No. 07-099-GMS, 2008 U.S.
Dist. LEXIS 104561, at *5 (D. Del. Dec. 29, 2008) (stating that "forum shopping" occurs when plaintiffs
"seek to avoid prior rulings or governing precedents in other jurisdictions").
of Massachusetts. To support their forum choice, Google and YouTube state that they have
offices in the proposed transferee district.
(Google, D.I. 22 at 3.)
Further, the defendants
collectively argue that transfer would better serve the interests of judicial economy because:
VideoShare filed an earlier action against YouTube in Massachusetts involving the same claimed
technology; as such, the Massachusetts court is familiar with the subject matter in controversy;
and transfer to Massachusetts would allow all of the VideoShare lawsuits to proceed in a single
forum. (Google, D.I. 22 at 3-4; Viddler, D.I. 16 at 5; Vimeo, D.I. 15 at 4-5.) In response,
VideoShare argues that Google's and YouTube's forum choice should be given less weight than
its preference to litigate in Delaware, (Google; D.I. 17 at 6), and that Viddler's and Vimeo's
choice should be disregarded because they do not have a physical connection to Massachusetts.
(Viddler, D.I. 17 at 8).
As an initial matter, concerns of judicial economy are traditionally evaluated under the
"practical considerations" public interest factor.
Nevertheless, the court finds that the now
dismissed Massachusetts action offers minor support to the defendants' forum choice.
discussed in Note 2, supra, the Massachusetts action was dismissed for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction because Video Share provided YouTube a covenant not to sue for past or future
infringement of the '492 patent. The Massachusetts court reasoned that "the covenant suffices to
'extinguish any current or future case or controversy between the parties"' regarding the '492
patent. Mass. Action, No. 12-cv-12012-MLW, slip op. at 6 (D. Mass. Feb. 1, 2014) (quoting Del
Jones & Co., Inc. v. Ablaise Ltd., 606 F.3d 1338, 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2010)). As a result, the action
was disposed of on procedural grounds and not on the merits of the patent after an analysis of the
underlying technology. Accordingly, any support for transfer based on the court's familiarity
with the dispute is minor. Moreover, the Massachusetts court found that resolution of the instant
transfer motions was the "most appropriate" means for determining which jurisdiction should
adjudicate the parties' dispute concerning the '608 and '302 patents.
Id., slip op. at 10.
Therefore, the court finds that the defendants' choice of forum weighs only slightly in favor of
c. Whether claims arose elsewhere
"[A]s a matter of law, 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. §27l(a)). Accordingly, this factor is generally neutral
where the defendant in a patent infringement action operates on a national level because the
infringement can be viewed as occurring in all districts. Smart Audio, 910 F. Supp. 2d at 730.
However, the court has acknowledged that this factor weighs slightly in favor of transfer when
"at least some of the research and development activities relating to [the accused] products
occurred in the proposed transferee district" and none occurred in Delaware. Id. at 730-31.
Here, Viddler and Vimeo concede that this factor is neutral because they simply operate at a
national level. (Viddler, D.I. 16 at 5; Vimeo, D.I. 11 at 8.) But Google and YouTube contend
that "[t]o some extent ... the infringement claims arose in Massachusetts," (Google, D.I. 14 at
11), because the accused products were designed and developed "in part" at Google's
Massachusetts office, (Id., D.I. 15 "Galanes Deel.," ,-i 6). In response, VideoShare submitted
numerous Google and YouTube employee declarations averring that the "vast majority" of work
related to development, design, operation, and marketing of the online services takes place in
California. (Google, D.I. 17 at 7-10.)
Thus, considering the defendants collectively, the court
finds that this factor is neutral -- any consideration in favor of transfer for Google and YouTube
is undermined by the related Viddler and Vimeo actions.
d. Convenience of the parties
In evaluating the convenience of the parties, the court considers: "(1) the parties' physical
location; (2) the associated logistical and operational costs to the parties' employees in traveling
to Delaware (as opposed to the proposed transferee district) for litigation purposes; and (3) the
relative ability of each party to bear these costs in light of its size and financial wherewithal."
Smart Audio, 910 F. Supp. 2d at 731 (citation omitted).
Here, VideoShare is located in Massachusetts, and the defendants are located in
California (Google and YouTube), New York City (Vimeo), and Bethlehem, Pennsylvania
(Viddler). Google and YouTube argue that Massachusetts is a more convenient forum because
their employees who could testify about Google's YouTube software are located in the
Massachusetts office. (Google, D.I. 14 at 12.) Additionally, the defendants collectively argue that
transfer is warranted because none of them have offices or employees in Delaware, and that it
would be more convenient for VideoShare to litigate in Massachusetts, where its only office and
sole employee are located. (Google, D.I. 22 at 5; Viddler, D.l. 20 at 3; Vimeo, D.l. 15 at 6.)
VideoShare, on the other hand, argues that: Delaware is more convenient because it chose to
bring suit in this forum; the Google and YouTube witnesses likely to have relevant knowledge
are located in their California headquarters -- far from both districts, but closer to Delaware;
Viddler and Vimeo do not have a presence in Massachusetts; and those two defendants'
headquarters are significantly closer to Delaware than Massachusetts. 3 (Google, D.I. 17 at 12;
Viddler, D.I. 17 at 9-10.)
Accordingly, the court is presented with an unusual scenario - the parties' respective
headquarters are physically located further from their preferred forum than the opposed forum.
As such, the court does not need to deeply analyze the associated logistical and operational costs,
or the parties' ability to bear those costs, because the parties are willing to travel a further
distance to litigate in their preferred forum. Stated differently, none of the parties can make a
colorable argument that it would be "inconvenient" to litigate closer to home. Furthermore, all
of the parties are Delaware entities, and an entity's "decision to incorporate in Delaware
suggest[s] that the inconvenience of litigating here is somewhat less than the court would
ordinarily presume it to be." Linex Techs., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1924, at *15. Accordingly,
the court finds that this factor weighs against transfer.
e. Convenience of witnesses
The court next considers "the convenience of the witnesses--but only to the extent that
the witnesses may actually be unavailable for trial in one of the fora." Jumara, 55 F.3d at 879.
The defendants contend that the three named inventors of the asserted patents -- Gad Liwerant,
Guillaume Boissiere, and Christopher Dodge -- will likely be called to testify at trial regarding their
invention. Liwerant is VideoShare's President and CEO, and therefore, does not affect the "balance
of convenience" analysis because he is obligated to attend trial. See Afjj;metrix, Inc. v. Synteni, Inc.,
28 F. Supp. 2d 192, 203 (D. Del. 1998). VideoShare states that Boissiere resides in Arizona, but
has made himself available to testify in Delaware. (Google, D.I. 17 at 13.) In response, the
VideoShare submitted documentation showing that Viddler's and Vimeo's headquarters are,
respectively, 60 and I 00 miles from the Delaware courthouse, but 250 and 200 miles from the
Massachusetts courthouse. (Viddler, D.I. 17 at 9.)
defendants argue that Massachusetts is the "most convenient forum" for Dodge because he
resides in Boston. (Id., D.I. 22 at 6.) However, none of the parties provided any indication that
Boissiere would refuse to testify in Massachusetts or that Dodge would similarly refuse to testify
in Delaware. As such, the court finds this factor is neutral. See Linex Techs., 2013 U.S. Dist.
LEXIS 1924, at * 18 (finding factors only given weight when "likely witnesses reside beyond the
court's subpoena power and that there is reason to believe those witnesses will refuse to testify
absent a subpoena.").
Location of books and records
Finally, for the location of books and records factor, the court has acknowledged that
"[i]n patent infringement cases, the bulk of the relevant evidence usually comes from the accused
infringer. Consequently, the place where the defendant's documents are kept weighs in favor of
transfer to that location." Smart Audio, 910 F. Supp. 2d at 732 (citation omitted). Although
Google and YouTube maintain that some of the infringing technology was developed in Boston,
they don't provide any specific information. (Google, D.I. 14 at 14.) In the absence of such
information, the court can only consider that the majority of Google's and YouTube's records
are located in California -- far from both fora. As for Vimeo and Viddler, their records are
respectively located in New York City and Bethlehem, Pennsylvania.
records are located in Massachusetts, it is the plaintiff and will have far fewer pertinent
documents than the three combined defendants. Therefore, the court finds this factor is neutral
because the bulk of the relevant evidence is not located in either forum.
2. Public interest factors
The parties agree that many of the public interest Jumera factors are inapplicable or
neutral. The court will discuss the three disputed factors -- practical considerations, relative
administrative difficulty, and public policies of the fora.
a. Practical considerations
Jumara instructs the court to assess "practical considerations that could make the trial
easy, expeditious, or inexpensive." Jumara, 55 F.3d at 8.
One such consideration is the
existence ofrelated lawsuits in the district court. Smart Audio, 910 F. Supp. 2d at 733. Here, the
parties agree that judicial economy counsels keeping the three lawsuits in the same district
because they involve the same two patents and similar accused technologies, the parties simply
disagree as to which district. (Google, D.I. 22 at 7-8; Viddler, D.I. 16 at 5, D.I. I 7 at 14; Vimeo,
D.I. 11 at IO.) To support their judicial economy position, both sides reiterate their private
interest arguments. 4 Additionally, the defendants argue that "the District of Massachusetts is
now even more familiar with the dispute, having recently issued an opinion addressing the
litigation history between the parties, the subject matter of the action, and the patents at issue."
(Google, D.I. 24 at 2.) The court disagrees. As noted above, the Massachusetts court's ruling
was made on procedural grounds and not on the merits of the underlying patented technology.
Accordingly, practical considerations and judicially economy counsel that the three lawsuits
should remain in Delaware because the private interest factors weigh against transfer.
b. Relative administrative difficulty
The parties provide court statistics for the relative administrative difficulty in the two fora
VideoShare contends this factor weighs significantly against transfer because the District of Delaware has the
stronger connection to the three lawsuits -- all of the parties freely chose to incorporate/organize in this district;
Google's and YouTube's only connection to Massachusetts is that one of its thirty United States regional offices is
located in that district; and Viddler and Vimeo have no physical connection whatsoever to Massachusetts. (Viddler,
D.I. 17 at 14-15.) In response, the defendants argue that "[t]he center of gravity of this controversy remains in
Massachusetts" because VideoShare is headquartered there; a nonparty named inventor resides there; the "claimed
inventions were developed there"; and YouTube has an office there. (Google, or D.I. 24 at 2.)
resulting from court congestion. VideoShare contends that this factor weighs against transfer because
the District of Delaware is comparatively faster at moving patent cases through its docket than the District
of Massachusetts. Specifically, VideoShare argues that from 2000 to 20 I 0, the District of Delaware had
an average of 1.05 years to resolution and 2.03 years to trial, compared to 1.29 and 2.66 years in the
District of Massachusetts. (Google, D.I. 17 at 18, citing Mark A. Lemley, Where to File Your Patent
Case at 15-18.) Conversely, the defendants argue that this factor is neutral because 2012 judicial
statistics indicate that the median time to trial for civil cases was 29.8 months in Delaware and 31.0
months in Massachusetts - a negligible difference. (Google, D.I. 14 at 17.) The court is not convinced
that the cited statistics favor one forum over another. Accordingly, the court finds this factor is
c. Public policies of the fora
Finally, VideoShare argues that Delaware's public policy, which encourages resolving
business disputes between Delaware entities in Delaware, weighs against transfer because all of
parties are Delaware entities. (Google, D.I. 17 and 19.) Google and YouTube contend that they
have "no discernible connection to Delaware beyond it being their state of organization," and
"[t]he mere fact that [they] are organized in [Delaware] is not 'dispositive of the public interest
analysis."' (Id, D.I. 14 at 16 (quoting Link_A_Media Devices, 662 F.3d at 1224).) While the
court agrees that this factor is not dispositive, it does have "minimal importance" and weighs
slightly against transfer because all of the parties are companies organized under Delaware law.
See AIP Acquisition LLC v. iBasis, Inc., C.A. No. 12-616-GMS, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 150534,
at *18 (D. Del. Oct. 19, 2012).
C. Transfer Analysis Summary
Considering the Jumara factors as a whole, the court finds the defendants have not met
their burden of demonstrating that the interests of justice and convemence strongly favor
transfer. Indeed, only the defendants' forum preference counseled transfer, and that factor is
eclipsed by VideoShare's forum choice, which was afforded a degree of heightened deference as
an individual Jumera factor. Additionally, the convenience of the parties weighs against transfer
and the remaining private interest factors are neutral. Likewise, most of the public interest
Jumera factors are neutral or inapplicable in this case. However, the "practical considerations"
factor weighs against transfer because the District of Delaware has a stronger connection to the
defendants as a whole. Similarrly, Delaware's public policy weighs slightly against transfer.
For the reasons stated above, the court will deny the defendants' motions to transfer to
the District of Massachusetts pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a).
Dated: April_L, 2014
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE
Civil Action No. 13-990 GMS
Defendants/Counterclaim Plaintiffs. )
GOOGLE INC. and YOUTUBE LLC,
Civil Action No. 13-991-GMS
Civil Action No. 13-992-GMS
At Wilmington, this _(_ day of April, 2014,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT:
1. The Google's and YouTube's Motion to Transfer to the District of Massachusetts and
Stay Proceedings Pending Disposition of the Transfer Motion (13-990, D.I. 13) is
2. The Viddler's Motion to Transfer to the District of Massachusetts and Stay Proceedings
Pending Disposition of the Transfer Motion (13-991, D.I. 15) is DENIED.
3. The Vimeo's Motion to Transfer to the District of Massachusetts and Stay Proceedings
Pending Disposition of the Transfer Motion (13-992, D.I. 10) is DENIED.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?